The national debate raging over health-care reform has become a maelstrom of competing claims and counterclaims. It has been deeply infected by political demagoguery and hysteria.
The tenor of the debate raises the legitimate question as to whether our nation still has the capacity to tackle an enormously complex policy challenge such as this one. Each day we spend millions of dollars to defeat external threats -- but if we cannot address our own domestic problems any more effectively than this, then it will not be al Qaeda that undoes us.
The primary Christian interest in health-care reform is the moral imperative to extend adequate health care to all of our nation’s people. Why is health-care access a moral imperative? Choose your Scripture text or your moral theory, but they all point in the same direction:
6 comments:
I find it interesting that the President's primary issue now is discussed in the context of a "moral imperative" when the same people certainly don't comment nor write articles emphasizing the moral imperative to end abortion. There is without a doubt a quantity of energy focused on support of this plan that has never been expressed by the same people towards the abolition of abortion. But nonetheless I am not surprised.
I think Gushee did address this:
"Is it not possible for Christians to care both about people getting health care when they need it, and about abortion and euthanasia?
"Once again we see how important it is that Christians develop a holistic, comprehensive sanctity-of-life ethic concerned about human well-being from womb to tomb -- and everywhere in between.
"I have argued that extension of health-care access is a great moral imperative. I have also argued that it must not, cannot, and -- as far as I can see -- is not being purchased at the price of succumbing to euthanasia or taxpayer-funded abortion."
You make a good point Dale, but I also think it could be turned the other way. Many of those who fight to end abortion say little about the moral imperative of caring for all people.
To many on the right, especially the most vocal, (and I don't include you in this, Dale), "the least of these" only includes unborn babies--once born you are on your own.
I have been an occasional lurker on this site for some time, and feel compelled to respond. Frankly, the reason Todd says things like "to many on the right" is because he does not read thoughtful conservative commentary. If you restrict your exposure to conservatives to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, you will get a highly skewed view of conservative thought. If you are going to do YOUR side the courtesy of picking the strongest arguments from the most eloquent and intelligent spokespersons, you ought to do the same for your opposition. Anyone passingly familiar with conservative intellectual thought will know that health care reform is important. No one argues that people should not have access to health care; the issue is HOW that access should be effected. In fact, it is quite possible to oppose the president's plan and still be in favor of health care reform. Similarly, the old canard about pro-lifers halting their concern for human life at the point of birth represents willful ignorance of what pro-life intellectuals think and believe (and practice).
The intellectually honest thing to do is attack your opponent where they are strongest -- not attack straw men.
OK, Natural Lawyer, fair enough. Who do you recommend I read?
Well, in the area of classics, I recommend some Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas.
More contemporary works could include Michael Novak's "The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism" and "On Two Wings"; J. Budziszewski's "What We Can't Not Know" and "Evangelicals in the Public Square"; Robert George's "The Clash of Orthodoxies"; C.S. Lewis's "The Abolition of Man"; Paul Marshall's "God and the Constitution"; and Charles Colson's "Against the Night" and "How Now Shall We Live?"
More topically, check out J. Daryl Charles's "Between Pacifism and Jihad" and Jean Bethke Elshtain's "Just war against Terror" for war; Charles Colson and Nigel Cameron's "Human Dignity in the Biotech Century" on bioethics; Robert George and Jean Bethke Elshtain's "The Meaning of Marriage:" on the whole host of marriage/gay marriage issues; and Peter Kreeft's "The Unaborted Socrates" on -- well, you get the idea.
If you want on-line material, I highly recommend regular perusing of both First Things [First Things] and Public Discourse [Public Discourse].
For a balanced assessment of competing ideologies from a Christian perspective see Budziszewski's two articles on liberalism and conservatism: Problem with Liberalism and Problem with Conservatism.
And one way to think about how to order issues in terms of importance: Hierarchy of issues
Finally, on health care itself (though there is some on this issue in the above), Heritage does a good job of making its research and advocacy available to interested people. Yes, it's a conservative outfit -- but they aren't blowhards. See Health Care Reform
That ought to cover things for awhile!
Thank you for making my point, Todd. The sum of the energy in the article is about the moral imperative for healthcare. And all he has to do is lob in 3-4 sentences that contain the word, "abortion" (all in context with regards to people thinking that the plan is going to include public funding of such), and that constitutes "address"ing the issue. I have no problem with making the case for a moral imperative for healthcare. What I have a problem with is that less than 12 months ago, articles are written regarding the moral imperative to end abortion as it now exists -- but because they don't spend equal time and energy on other social issues, they are dismissed as uncaring.
What is your position with regards to the concept that if there exists the currently proposed government option, someone working at Target who currently has Blue Cross will be forced into the government option because it is cheaper for Target to drop Blue Cross?
BTW, are you following the LLWS? The McAllister Park boys are our boys!!!!!! My kids play in that little league so we see these kids around the field all the time and got to watch them in district and sectional play. We are stoked about their chances but they have big challenges this weekend.
Is it true that Jessica Simpson has latched onto Colt Brennan?
Post a Comment