Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Whose Responsibility is My Health?
Health-care reform is an economic, political and medical issue. But On Faith panelist and evangelical leader Jim Wallis says it's also a "deeply theological issue, a Biblical issue and a moral issue." Do you agree? Why or why not?
I agree that health care is a moral issue, irrespective of whether it is theological or Biblical. That said, does the U.S. need health care reform? Absolutely. But first our nation needs to reform our definition of health.
What does it mean to be healthy? Is it limited to the state of the physical body? How about mental and emotional health and the effects they have on the body? Health-care reform should begin with a broader understanding of health on all levels, and it should also begin with the individual. First and foremost, the condition of my health is largely in my own hands, unless of course I have a genetic illness, have been in an accident, have been exposed to a communicable disease, or am the victim of some other factor outside my personal control. Even in many such situations, however, what I eat and how I live my life will likely affect my condition. Therefore, should I attempt to live and eat in such ways that help promote health. Would this not be an ethical approach or do I lack any personal responsibility? If everyone started here and actually made some efforts in this regards, we would most assuredly have much less of a health care problem with which to deal.
What about those who put a great deal of time, energy, and effort into becoming and staying healthy? There should be some incentive for them to continue on such a path. How about those whose recreational habits and lifestyles cause them to become ill regularly or seriously, such as through drug use, tobacco addiction, alcoholism, etc.? Should they have to take any responsibility for such choices. These are difficult questions, but they must be addressed one way or another if we want to find solution that is ethical and fair.
Personally, I became vegetarian many years ago out of a deep moral conviction, not for health concerns. Nevertheless, once I stopped being a consumer of flesh products, my physical health improved greatly to the point that illness of any kind has long been a rarity in my life. I don't think I am unusual in that regards. Thus, I believe health education should be one of the first steps that we take in reforming health care in our country. Such education should include the role of mental and emotional health as well and also address various steps and practices that can be done to promote overall well being. Promoting personal responsibility for one's actions and well being seems to be a good ethical approach.
As a nation, it would be wonderful if everyone was in a state of good health, but this will never happen. Even if the government were to control every aspect of our lives, which would be a dictatorship, it would still be impossible to make everyone healthy. The main reason for it has to do with the negative effects of environment, poor diet, mental and emotional upheavals, and other unhealthy elements and choices in people's lives and lifestyles.
Then, the path to addressing health care should turn to considering the role and responsibility the government might play in providing health care for everyone. However, in order to accomplish this, Americans definitely need a dialogue on health and health care, but this is not what is currently happening. Those who support President Obama's approach tend to see all those who disagree as right wing ideologues who lack any compassion and are possibly even racist. On the other hand, those who are against government run health care see anyone who agrees with the President's approach as pushing for an all encompassing socialist nanny state. This is not dialogue, but rather dueling monologues. Few on either side seem willing to accept anything the other side has to say. Such an approach is neither moral nor responsible.
Most of us who live in the U.S. are fortunate to have access to some of the best and most advanced health care technology in the world. People from many other countries who can afford to do so come here for treatment. At the same time, it has become increasingly unaffordable for a definite portion of our population, and this is where it would seem the government can and should attempt to help out. At the same time, turning the entire health care system over to the government is not a good idea at all. Our history has shown that, with few exceptions, once the government tries to run a business, its demise is in often in sight.
Finally, if we do move to a health care system that is government determined and government run, then there is one element that I believe will help assure that our legislatures will work hard to arrive at a fair system: ALL legislatures and law makers involved in crafting health care legislation, including the president, should be limited to the same system that other Americans are given. Law makers are not superior individuals who deserve better treatment, and they should not get it. Such an approach is both ethical and fair.
By
Ramdas Lamb
|
August 19, 2009; 2:12 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Looking for a Higher Authority on Health Care |
Next: God Expects Us to Take Care of Each Other
Posted by: Paganplace | August 19, 2009 2:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Well, a lot of these abstractions aren't really helping the real and present needs: in fact, under the current system, it's a lot more profitable, (and on the consumer end, 'thrifty') not to focus on 'wellness' ...but rather to not do anything until something is wrong enough to make a 'claim' which the profiteers will then approve or deny.
In some ways, saying, 'You should be healthier' and then leveling 'sin taxes' to make it more expensive to self-medicate ... ends up being a non-solution.
It's *easy* to say "Oh, you should first all be more virtuous, whatever that is," while not changing the *systems* that mean these 'virtuous' things aren't integrated into a real life lifestyle, but rather something else to buy or do on top of it. Meanwhile, people who say this laugh all the way to the bank and leave the masses more and more harried and more and more trying to buy pills for their ills...
The culture here in the West tends to be built around the notion that 'Suffering and hard work are good for you, if you suffer and work hard, you can afford to get things fixed.' And they wonder why the quality of products and services keeps going down while people get sicker and sicker.
Qui bono?
You need look no further than the ads on TV.
Health insurance companies and 'Big Pharma' are the 'company store' ...the gouging, often unscrupulous, only game in town.
It doesn't have to be this way.
Posted by: Paganplace | August 19, 2009 1:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
Or, let's put it this way: It's just fine over here to have a 'Socialized Military:' if we defended the company with whatever 'competing' big corporations did and called it 'Capitalism' ...we'd be speaking Japanese by now.
The nature of 'insurance' is the same. Competition doesn't help you, cause all insurance does is have some money and by virtue of having that money, spread risk, over time and over numbers. The bigger the kitty, the better, essentially. There's no benefit to paying for gazillions of different skyscrapers mostly concerned with advertising one pile of money over another and administering which 'brand' of money your doctor gets paid with.
There are inherent conflicts of interest there. Among them are trying to justify the existence of themselves based on who can get paid the most to offer the least.
People's lifestyles and consciousness about them *have* to change. The problem is that the system is ideologically stacked *against* those changes. In a sane world, it's be a no brainer that it's better to mow your own lawn than to pay someone to come along with an engine to do it for you so you can drive another engine to squeeze in some health club time....
But this is how it goes.