Health care reform from one Christian's persepctive

On Aug. 19, President Obama asked clergy to speak in support of health care reform.

I am the kind of Baptist who thinks that clergy should not preach about political issues from the pulpit; however, I do have convictions, which I am willing to share in conversation, classroom and columns such as this. As a Baptist Christian, I believe in the right to speak freely whether or not my opinions are embraced by my president or even by all members of my own congregation.

Since health care reform is a Mount Everest challenge, which few can master and none can view completely without changing perspectives to view this mountain from another angle, I offer three simple perspectives on this mountain of an issue.

-- People who take seriously the gospel of Jesus Christ will make health care a priority.
Jesus consistently made healing a part of his mission. He spent far more time healing people than talking about going to heaven — by a factor of 20 to one, the last time I counted.

Christians can be lost in the land of forgetfulness, where we neglect the major emphases of Jesus’ ministry and major on minor points. When we come home to the normative pattern of the Gospel, we remember that Jesus has entrusted to us his complete ministry, including the ministry of healing. As one who seeks to follow Jesus Christ, healing and health care are a priority.

-- People who seek to be good citizens will make health care a priority.
As a preacher, it is easy to use moralizing language, but I seek to avoid such language with this issue, for I do not believe that health care reform is primarily a moral issue. People who make it a moral issue often label opposing people/opinions as “bad” and waste much energy in raucous posturing.

Good people view the Mount Everest of health care reform from different angles. Good people also draw the boundaries of citizenship differently.

I believe that being a good citizen means giving as much attention to internal problems as to external threats. I believe that the character of a country is measured, not only by the dollars it spends to defeat an external adversary, but also in its ability to solve important domestic issues, such as improving its health care system.

In my opinion, it is poor citizenship to reduce health care reform to one issue and withdraw from the conversation if my issue is not treated as I prefer. It is poor citizenship to distort information for the sake of my agenda or my special interest. It is poor citizenship to focus primarily on self-interest rather than on the common good.

As one who wants to be a good citizen, I seek not to moralize but to follow these basic principles of civic problem-solving.

-- As I apply my Christian common sense to an issue in which I have earned no professional expertise, I favor a modest proposal, focusing on a realistic and accessible plan of national health care.
I am by nature an idealist, but I think that an idealistic solution to such a complex issue would be too complicated to gain legislative approval and too cumbersome to implement. I vote for realistic, because change must factor in the reality of the landscape of this mountain.

For example, our current health care system is barely capable of caring for the current load of patients; therefore, a plan that expands participation in the system must include provisions to expand the network of health care providers.

Whether it is a car or a health care plan, wealth always purchases extra options; therefore, a realistic plan would focus on basic health care rather than on equal access to all health care options. I vote for accessible, because one of the gravest issues with the current system is that it has become too adept at eliminating people with major health issues or inadequate economic resources.

When I practice neighbor-love, I care about the inclusion of my neighbor in health care. Two factors that I would bring to this conversation are:

(a) Factoring personal responsibility for health care into the system.
An entitlement virus seems to be spreading in our society. To allow it to infect a national health plan would be fatal. I think that the best antidote for this virus is taking responsibility, claiming my ability to pursue a healthy lifestyle and to manage my own health.
One of the most effective aspects of President Obama’s campaign for office was engaging people in the process. People felt hopeful, empowered, because they were engaged in making a difference. Why not appeal to citizens to become pro-active in their own health care as one way they can make a personal commitment to an improved health care system? Why not provide incentives for those who pursue disciples of prevention and good health? Jesus once asked a man, “Do you want to be well?”
By our lifestyle choices we demonstrate our personal commitment to good health.

(b) Listening to those who have devoted their lives to the work of quality health care.
I trust health care professionals to know best what works and what does not work about our system; therefore, I think that their input is critical in the crafting of proposed improvements. People who manage from outside a system seldom achieve an improved process;
therefore, I am naïve enough to want maximum input from health care professionals, not insurance executives, politicians, or even competent but partially informed consumers such as myself. My expertise is not health care.

Those who have taken the time to read this column will agree and may suggest that I not quit my day job. But my president has asked me to engage the conversation, and my Lord has called me to take seriously the ministry of healing, so I share my view of this Mount Everest matter, hopeful that a sustained dialogue will eventuate in a realistic and accessible national plan of health care.