The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Jesus' health care plan
by Nicole Sotelo on Oct. 01, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionJesus was perhaps one of the world’s first health care reformers. During a time in history when Greeks and Romans often traveled to a temple with offerings in exchange for healing, Jesus and his early followers healed free of charge wherever they encountered the sick, often at great peril to themselves.
In fact, healing is a constitutive element of Jesus’ ministry. His first miracles in the Gospel of Mark are casting a demon from a man and healing a woman with a fever. In the whole of the gospels, there are 41 distinct stories of physical or mental healing. Jesus heals the blind, cures the withered hand and stops the bleeding.
He called his followers to do the same. Jesus instructed his disciples to go into towns and “cure the sick who are there” (Luke 10:9). Religion, caste or payment is not a consideration; instead, mercy and healing is extended to everyone.
I wish that were true in the United States.
Today, the United States is the only industrialized democracy that does not offer universal health care. All other comparable countries -- from Japan to Canada -- have universal health coverage. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s report last month, the number of uninsured people living in the United States rose to 46.3 million in 2008. The number of underinsured -- those whose health coverage does not protect them from high medical expenses -- was estimated to be 25 million in 2007.
The lack of universal health care in the United States disproportionately affects young adults. Adults aged 19 to 29 are one of the fastest growing groups of people who lack health insurance. Young adults represent approximately 30 percent of uninsured adults under age 65, despite the fact that they represent only 17 percent of the same population, according to the Commonwealth Fund, a health care foundation.
If there ever was a need for intergenerational equity, it is here: without young adults, the health care system is debilitated. The insurance industry depends on young adults’ relatively good health to help spread the risk of high payouts among insurance members and keep premiums low for everyone in the system. Without young adults, our health care system is bound to fail.
And yet, obtaining comprehensive and affordable health insurance is a critical problem for young adults. Low-level jobs rarely offer employer-based insurance and pre-existing conditions keep others off the rolls. Even when a young adult is able to afford health insurance, underinsurance is a problem. In a recent Commonwealth Fund survey of both insured and uninsured young adults, one in four were paying off medical debt.
As millions in our country suffer from lack of health insurance, Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kan., and Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City, Mo., issued a joint pastoral statement last month in response to the health care reform proposals from the current administration. They write that “many of the proposals which have been promoted would diminish the protection of human life and dignity.”
The fact that more than 46 million people living in the world’s wealthiest country do not have affordable access to health care, in my opinion, is already a great diminution of the dignity of human life.
From Jesus’ early disciples who cared for the sick to today’s ministries that care for the “untouchables” of our times, we are called to carry out Jesus’ version of a health care plan: to care for everyone.
While we may not be risking our lives to care for the sick ourselves, the least we can do is support expanded health care for all. Really, it is the only Christian thing to do.
Nicole Sotelo is the author of Women Healing from Abuse: Meditations for Finding Peace, published by Paulist Press, and coordinates www.WomenHealing.com. A graduate of Harvard Divinity School, she currently works at Call To Action.
Stop thinking that insurance
Stop thinking that insurance is a way of paying for medical care. It is only meant to protect finances from the unpredictability and size of medical expenses. It's like homeowners insurance or the comprehensive part of an automobile insurance policy. Insurers still expect that maintenance will be the insured's responsibility and that there will be an upper limit to how much they will cover.
In short, there is NO SYSTEM AT ALL IN THE UNITED STATES TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL PEOPLE GET THE MEDICAL CARE THEY NEED AT A PRICE THEY CAN AFFORD. This is what needs to be fixed. Insurance does not need to be fixed, and people do not need insurance unless they have financial assets to protect.
Young people, who essentially have no assets, do not need health insurance, but everyone needs access to affordable medical care. That is why the only proper way to make sure that people have affordable medical care when they need it is for everyone to recognize that they have a responsibility to provide financially for the maintenance of their health and that this is best done by everyone contributing an affordable, equal percentage of income into a NATIONAL HEALTH SAVINGS PROGRAM from which medical bills are paid.
Ms. Sotelo seems to be making
Ms. Sotelo seems to be making a common error: mistaking health insurance for health care. They are not the same thing. We do not need to "expand health care"; we need to find ways to make health care affordable for all.
In the past, when physicians were free to set prices on their own, they could charge a little more to patients who could afford it to cover the costs of treating those who couldn't. Because medicine was a largely local pursuit, doctors knew their patients well enough to make these distinctions.
With the government now effectively setting prices via Medicare reimbursements, physicians can no longer spread out those costs. I assume that Ms. Sotelo's plan for addressing the cost of paying for eveyone's health care is to raise taxes. I am skeptical of the government's ability to a) manage a system efficiently enough to make it cost-effective, and b) to set prices that will cover the real costs of medical treatment.
"Because medicine was a
"Because medicine was a largely local pursuit, doctors knew their patients well enough to make these distinctions."
When perscriptions were primarily for locally produced botanicals and there were few non-locally manufactured pharmceuticals available or affordable, it was a "largely local pursuit" . The doctors usually came from the community they served or set up practice in one office, operating in one of the few local hospitals and stayed there until retirement. The injuries and illnesses they treated were like the botanicals, primarily local. They knew their patients because they had treated more than one generation in their patients' families. (I'm not too sure how happy patients were when they learned that they were charged according to how rich they were.)
Now, with increased global mobility resulting from international business and employment opportunities, accessible and affordable tourist travel and ever-increasing military deployment, both injuries and illnesses are more exotic and can easily become pandemic.
Finding ways to make health care more affordable for all is no longer something one individual, one group or even one state can accomplish. It is our mutual responsibility as citizens of the United States of America to safeguard and provide for all the unalienable rights enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.
Our government is managing the Medicare/Medicaid and veterans' health services efficiently and cost-effectively. Granted, there is much room for improvement both in cost and care. But then there have been unprecedented demands as a result of various causes: natural disasters, ubiquitous armed conflicts, pandemics, increased cancer rates and recently recognized treatable mental illness like PTSD, hyperactivity, depression and autism, just to name a few.
"we need to find ways to make health care affordable for all."
This will only happen when we work together, disregarding profit and partisanship. We must let our elected representatives know that the future of our families and our country depends on our common good health. We must learn about the choices available and support legislation that makes good options affordable and available to all.
We can begin immediately by examining our own lifestyle and making healthy choices. By his example, Jesus seems to be saying, "By this shall people know you are my disciple: that you take care of yourselves and offer this caring love to all". Paz y Bien, Rolando.
I understand your skepticism
I understand your skepticism about the government's ability to "a)manage a system efficiently enough to make it cost-effective, and b)to set prices that will cover the real costs of medical treatment". However, the alternative is to trust corporations to do that. And, frankly, if one is willing to look at the rise in healthcare cost and, at the same time, the rise in profits of the insurance industry, it is clear that there is no reason to trust that the industry will do a better job than government - really, none at all. And, I think you are saying that the insurance industry is to be trusted more. This is where we disagree. Have you been willing to look at some of the success other countries have had in offering health insurance to their people? If not, I think it is worth the time to consider where these other countries have succeeded.
Mr. David, I don't think I
Mr. David,
I don't think I said anything about trusting corporations or insurance companies. I'm more interested in seeing health care return to a local, personal practice where doctors determine prices and people pay for routine medical care on a per-service basis.
I do see a role for insurance in covering catastrophic medical events. I don't believe insurance should be used for shifting costs for routine care. (As someone smarter than I pointed out, my car insurance won't pay for oil changes, and my home insurance won't pay for cutting my yard, yet we expect health insurance to cover comparable services.)
Thanks, Nicole, for these
Thanks, Nicole, for these powerful and timely words. I hope that Congress stops listening to the voices of the few who oppose healthcare reform and start listening to folks like you who know that healthcare for all means dignity for all.
On a separate note, I'm glad to see that some bishops and many Catholics are speaking out for healthcare reform for all those living in the US, not just those here "legally." We must not forget our immigrant brothers and sisters in this debate.
I agree, it is the only
I agree, it is the only Christian thing to do. And if we don't do it we'd better stop saying we are a Christian country (which I don't buy anyhow but the Christian right who tend to oppose the healthcare do). By their fruits you will know them - and we've had a terrible time during the past administration.
Good point about the lack of
Good point about the lack of care for young people. I work in the health care field, and I along with many of my co-workers have been alarmed in the increase of hospital admissions of young people who have never had health insurance, and are now admitted with multiple disabling conditions such as diabeter, cardiovascular disease, obesity, alcohol and drug abuse. They must look forward to a future of poor health and staggering cost to society with whatever emergency health care services they may be able to find. Poor health and diminished access to education and employment do not speak too well for the near future of our country.
One small point of Scriptual
One small point of Scriptual history:
"Jesus and his early followers healed free of charge wherever they encountered the sick"
- Actually, no. He didn't always do this. See Matthew chap 13 v 58.
"The fact that more than 46 million people living in the world’s wealthiest country do not have affordable access to health care, in my opinion, is already a great diminution of the dignity of human life."
- I think you missed the point of what the bishops were saying. They were saying, I believe, that we can't accept a healthcare solution that provides public funding and coverage for abortion.
What the bishops say is one
What the bishops say is one thing and what most Catholics believe is an entirely different story. A recent poll found that 68% of Catholics reject the arguments being made by the bishops that Catholics are obligated to entirely oppose any healthcare reform plan that includes abortion coverage.
Check it out here: www.catholicsforchoice.org
"Catholics reject the
"Catholics reject the arguments being made by the bishops that Catholics are obligated to entirely oppose any healthcare reform plan that includes abortion coverage."
- Doctrine, Church teaching, right and wrong, ... these things do not change because suddenly 50.1% or more of people find them inconvenient. At one point in history, most 'Catholics' rejected the idea that Jesus was both fully God and fully man too.
When it comes to morality, I think I will listen and weigh what the Bishops of the Church say very carefully, instead of tossing them aside out of hand.
I too "will listen and weigh
I too "will listen and weigh what the Bishops of the Church say very carefully" (and, frankly, the bishops seem to be saying different things on this topic). I will also include prayerful descernment. However, if after doing all that, I believe that another course is the right course, I will follow that course. I understand that in this climate of polarization, it is easier, even fashionable, to put all thoses who have a different opinon into the same box. Yet, the truth is that not everyone who disagrees with the bishops do it casually or, as you say "out of hand". Peace and prayers
WWJC? (Who Would Jesus Cover)
WWJC?
(Who Would Jesus Cover)
However it's done, we have to
However it's done, we have to start thinking more about caring for each other and less about making money to do it. When I was a naive child, I remember seeing an ad for diabetic supplies in a newspaper, and was shocked to discover that the drugstore actually charged for these supplies. I was truly shocked. I could not believe that somebody who had diabetes had to pay to treat their illness. I simply assumed that we (meaning taxpayers) would have pitched in enough money to pay those bills. In the naivete of my sheltered youth, I felt bad for the people who were sick through no fault of their own, and then had to pay to get better. Something was terribly wrong with that system. I currently am a full time student with student health insurance and a free clinic on campus. What a joy to be able to go there when I was sick and not have to worry about getting another bill. Affordable healthcare for every American citizen is possible. We are smart. We can figure out a way to make it happen.
"currently am a full time
"currently am a full time student with student health insurance and a free clinic on campus. What a joy to be able to go there when I was sick and not have to worry about getting another bill."
Katie, when you went to the clinic and got your medicine and/or treatment, it wasn't free. You may not have to pay directly, but someone does. Either additional student fees, government money perhaps if it is a state school, etc. but be sure: SOMEONE ALWAYS PAYS.
This is something I see as a major problem in our debate on healthcare - the perception that we can make it free. We can't. We should work to get those who can't get medical and health care taken care of, in this I agree with you 100%!! But stating that we must make it 'free' does not help, because that is totally impossible.
Let's use an example dealing with your childhood discovery that people had to pay to get their insulin and testing supplies. As children we think "Wait! Why do people have to pay for things that they need to save their life?" When we are adults is when we start to understand the complications.
OK, let's say that we make the drugist give it away for free. Then how shall he pay the people who make their living by MAKEING the insulin now that he has no income to cover it? How shall he pay the shipping costs to get it from the labs to his drug store? How shall he pay the employees who dispense the drugs? Shall he pay these himself for the sake of anyone who wants it for free? If so than how shall he make his living? Shall the government pay him and all the other associated costs? If so, they must either defund current projects or raise taxes to get the money to do this, which basically means that EVERYONE PAYS ANYWAY.
My point here is not to say that we shouldn't help these people. We should! It is our Catholic duty to do so! But we must not operate under the false idea that it can be truly FREE. The bill ALWAYS comes due.
Pete, the pharmacist might
Pete, the pharmacist might start getting the ball rolling by insisting the retail price of insulin actually reflected the costs to produce and ship it. Believe me, having an insulin dependent child has taught me everything I need to know about how health care in this country operates.
Twenty years ago we were told that in five years test strips and glucometers would be outmoded as the new wave of technology took effect. We would see a painless pain free lazer device in less than five years. I laughed and asked the nurse practioner if she though big pharma was going to give up the cash cow of glucometer test strips. Apparently not. We're still waiting.
The statements "Today, the
The statements "Today, the United States is the only industrialized democracy that does not offer universal health care. All other comparable countries -- from Japan to Canada -- have universal health coverage" are canards. Canada has 30+ million people. The United States has 300+ million people. Those situations are not necessarily comparable.
You bring out a very good
You bring out a very good point. These other countries who have universal health coverage will have some issues that are different from what we are facing here in The U.S. To get a better picture (dare I say a heathier one), it will be important to understand these differences. Yet, it is also equally important not to let these differences automatically dismiss the viability of getting universal health care for our citizens. There still may be an awful lot of what we can learn from the successes these other countries have had.
"if there ever was a need for
"if there ever was a need for intergenerational equity, it is here: without young adults, the health care system is debilitated. The insurance industry depends on young adults’ relatively good health to help spread the risk of high payouts among insurance members and keep premiums low for everyone in the system. Without young adults, our health care system is bound to fail."
That's what you get for dissenting from Humanae Vitae. The baby boomers didn't have very many children, and now they're moaning and whining about healthcare. With a higher percentage of old people, per capita healthcare costs and premiums will rise; as the premiums rise, it becomes harder for young adults to get healthcare. Maybe people should've listened to the Church in the first place.
I don't think Jesus would
I don't think Jesus would tell us "get the Federal government to do it."
Miss Sotelo, in response to you statement:
"The fact that more than 46 million people living in the world’s wealthiest country do not have affordable access to health care, in my opinion, is already a great diminution of the dignity of human life."
I direct you to the words of the Holy Father as delivered to the new US Ambassador to the Vatican.
"Here I think particularly of the need for a clear discernment with regard to issues touching the protection of human dignity and respect for the inalienable right to life from the moment of conception to natural death, as well as the protection of the right to conscientious objection on the part of health care workers, and indeed all citizens. The Church insists on the unbreakable link between an ethics of life and every other aspect of social ethics, for she is convinced that, in the prophetic words of the late Pope John Paul II, "a society lacks solid foundations when, on the one hand, it asserts values such as the dignity of the person, justice and peace, but then, on the other hand, radically acts to the contrary by allowing or tolerating a variety of ways in which human life is devalued and violated, especially where it is weak or marginalized" (Evangelium Vitae, 93; cf. Caritas in Veritate, 15)"
You can fight all of the "social justice" causes that you want but they won't get anywhere as long as the underlying problem is the state sponsored murder of our children in utero. That is truly injustice.
It is NOT our Catholic
It is NOT our Catholic responsibility to force others to heal the sick.
It is our Catholic responsibility to act in the world ourselves to make it a better place. WE are to work to heal the sick. If we want to fulfill that command, we must continue to fund Catholic hospitals, provide Nurse's & Doctor's scholarships, Volunteer on our own....
Just angling for Government to do it is Wrong. Not only wrong, but foolish because....
Government is NOT the church. If Catholics have any religious principles about health care, birth, or dying... The Government will not honor them. Government is face-less, hope-less, and without compassion. Just look at any VA hospital. All our Catholic compassionate principles will be ignored by Government health provision.
Mark my words, Susan Lee
We are the government in this
We are the government in this country, and we most certainly can set up a system that pays for non-elective medical care out of a fund established for that purpose and funded by contributions of a reasonable percentage of the income of each citizen.
Abortions are elective procedures and there is no reason to think that they would be covered unless you also think plastic surgery, rather than reconstructive surgery, should be covered. The concern over this should not prevent anyone from considering the positives of making medical care costs income sensitive.
Quite honestly, I do not see how the working poor are to avail themselves of a hodge podge of well-meant but not necessarily always available medical care. Leaving the government out of such a grand task is foolish.
You are precisely right,
You are precisely right, Susan Lee. That is what we are called to do. We have great healthcare in this country, we need to keep it great and make it more accessible, not make it worse for everyone. People are fond of acting as if Americans are dying on the streets because they can't get healthcare, when the truth is that there are huge numbers of clinics and hospitals that treat people for free all the time, and that many of the poor have access to comprehensive healthcare that the middle class can't afford to buy. However, many of the poor do not (or do not know how to) avail themselves of the healthcare that's available, and many people of all incomes take very poor care of themselves and get sick when they shouldn't.
My business has two clients that provide medicine and healthcare to the poor. Getting people to use it is one of their biggest problems. Getting paid by the government is another. These are complex issues that are not going to be solved by labyrinthine bills no one has read. Federal programs necessarily are geared toward large numbers of people, not individual cases, and are not flexible. They are determined by vote and influence, not necessariy by what is right. They are slow to innovate, slow to make any changes, almost impossible to change -- why in the world would we want them handling a vast chunk of our economy and employment not to mention our lives?
I live in Italy. The bottom
I live in Italy. The bottom line of national health care is the health of the patient, because health care is considered a right. This makes the all the difference. I grew up on welfare and received funded care. I never saw the same doctor more than once until I moved to Italy as an adult. I battled with symptoms for 28 years. Only when I moved to Italy did I discover that I had an autoimmune disease called Celaic disease. I had proper health care in my early 20’s while doing my undergrad and Grad work, but I didn’t put it to good use, just as you mention. Because I came from a culture in which it was not considered a right to pursue. I thought that my state of “malessere” was something I had to live with. Health care is a constitutional right in Italy. My Italian boyfriend couldn’t understand how I could live plagued with all the symptoms I had. I was able to take exams and see specialists affordably. When the Italian gastroenterologist asked me if I was Irish I started ranting about being American but a legal resident in Italy, afraid that I wasn’t eligible for care, that it would be taken from me just as someone seemed to make sense of all my symptoms. He was quite puzzled, he simply wanted to know because Celiac disease is very common in the Irish race, from which I come. It’s hard to grasp the closed mindedness and selfishness expressed in front of this issue. I have paid too high a cost for American health care, and I wouldn’t give up national coverage for anything. Below is a link to testimonials from other Americans living in Italy that really care about this issue and have taken the time to share their experience with national health care: http://www.youtube.com/user/userAirConnect#
Come on. Look at the results
Come on. Look at the results of liberal ideas. The facts speak for themselves.
Canada, the U.K. and the Netherlands have child mortality rates that are greater than that of Bangladesh. Saudi Arabia's rate is less than 10% of the rates in these European welfare states.
The lowest rates in the US are in conservative Utah and South Dakota. The highest are NY and MD.
Dear Chaynes, Have you noted
Dear Chaynes,
Have you noted that abortion is lower in most all of western Europe? Have you noted the American obesity, and related health complication statistics, how about child birth mortality rates? It sounds to me that you are tailoring your one statistic to the necessity to defend conservatism at all costs. This kind of thinking really scares me. Maybe you could reflect upon justifying morally the Iraq war, gun rights and capital punishment? Or are they just good, because they are conservative? You may paint yourself into the corner, but I sure hope that America is sensible enough not to follow this trend, it is very dangerous.
"Jesus was perhaps one of the
"Jesus was perhaps one of the world’s first health care reformers." Ha ha ha! This is one of the funniest posts I've read in a long time. Seems to me that Jesus healed the sick as an outward sign that he could and would forgive sin. Not to bring universal healthcare to the world.
But by all means, Ms. Sotelo, continue promoting miraculous healing. If God gives you the ability to cure the sick with the wave of a hand, I hope you go out to all the nations and cure them for free for the greater glory of God. But until then, please do not compare apples to oranges.
Agreed. It seems that
Agreed. It seems that literal interpretation of the scripture is being adapted to fit the agenda.
Jesus calls each of us, as individual, to follow his way of helping the sick/weak -- he didn't call Ceasar! No one is stop any of Catholics to help the poor/sick is there?
Noticed how this one instance of the scripture is being applied to healthecare. What about marriage between a man & woman? What about LIFE? It doesn't make sense to provide universal healthcare that also funds the destruction of the unborn.
This is only mean.
This is only mean.
Once again I'm disappointed
Once again I'm disappointed by the mean-spirited remarks of so many comments here. Always, it seems, the meanest ones come from the conservatives and those who think themselves the most "orthodox." It just boggles me that you hang out here to trash every NCR writer: There are plenty of ultra-conservative Catholic websites for you to hang out on where you can comment all day with other like-minded (narrow-minded) folks who like to bash anyone with a heart. How about you go play there? Or better yet, go volunteer in a free clinic somewhere instead. This young woman is making a valid point about our appalling lack of moral authority in this country when it comes to healthcare. You know, caring for the sick. If you have a problem with that, and you feel that "social justice" needs quote marks around it ... then you're not reading your Gospels, I'd say.
Stephanie, thanks for your
Stephanie, thanks for your testimony about the Italian health system. My sister moved to and lives in Canada...had trouble getting prenatal care here in the U.S. for her unborn baby. She would not trade what she has now for our for profit system for anything.
I would like to add my voice to those who find the remarks of some of the "no healthcare" ultra-conservatives to be cruel and mean spirited, especially comments by someone named Gail F. and Thien.
Gail F. mocks and write:
"Seems to me that Jesus healed the sick as an outward sign that he could and would forgive sin."
Do you really believe that? Seems to me he just wanted to HEAL their physical illness and alleviate their pain and suffering. Something you seem blind to.
Pro Life Feminist, "Do you
Pro Life Feminist,
"Do you really believe that? Seems to me he just wanted to HEAL their physical illness and alleviate their pain and suffering. Something you seem blind to."
- I'm not totaly sure this is what Gail means. But it is also very clear in Scripture, as I referenced, that Jesus didn't always heal everyone. See the section in the Gospel of Luke for an example.
There was a connection between Jesus' miracles (and those done through His Name by his apostles and disciples) and His teaching of the Word.
Afterall, if He simply wanted to do nothing more than heal physical hurt, why didn't he just heal every sick person in the whole city he was in everytime, regardless of who they were, where they were, etc? It was within His power to do so. Why didn't he raise EVERYBODY from the dead, not just Lazerus, etc.?
This is not to take away from the mercy of Christ. FAR from it! But to say that all He was doing was simply motivated to alleviate their pain and suffering is far too simplistic.
The plural of anecdotes is
The plural of anecdotes is not data.
Post new comment