Well its been a while since I last posted, but I decided that I wanted to add a follow up to my last post. First I want to say that I recognize that a big reason why people have car insurance is to pay for the damage they cause someone else's vehicle. This fact does not however weaken my argument, that the purpose of auto insurance is to make sure that damages to ones own car are repaired. If you get in a car accident then the person you hit wants to make sure that you can pay for their vehicle to be fixed so they are willing to make a law that requires all drivers (including themselves) to pay for car insurance.
The second point that I wanted to make has to do with welfare in general, but I think it has specific application to universal health care. The basic argument comes from the Book of Mormon, but similar arguments can be found in other books of scripture including the Bible. In Mosiah chapters 2-5 King Benjamin explains to his people that none of them deserve to be saved in the kingdom of God and that no matter what they do they can never pay God back for the blessing of salvation. Because they are in debt to God for their salvation they should not turn away the beggars, but instead they should give of their own possessions to help the beggars.
Basically what I'm saying is that just because some people will abuse the system and don't deserve financial help doesn't mean that we shouldn't help them. According to the gospel of Jesus Christ we should serve even those who we feel don't deserve it because none of us deserve salvation (the baptists really get this).
The only real argument that a religious person could make against this point is that by providing universal health care you are not actually helping these people. Some would argue as an economist and say that it is best to allow free markets to take care of people, and then they will end up the most well off. Others might say that the current welfare system only creates dependency on the government and does not help people to overcome their circumstances, but instead it perpetuates their circumstances. I see this as a valid argument against the current government policies and a good argument for reform. What bothers me is that many Mormons simply say we should not have universal health care, and that the poor will just abuse the system and so we shouldn't have to pay for them to get medical care. This argument recognizes the weaknesses in the system and its need for reform, but it also shows an unwillingness by many to "impart of their substance to the poor."
Based on the arguments presented I would suggest that Mormons become politically active in the debate about health care reform. At present most republican congressmen have decided that they will have nothing to do with health care reform. Since they have with drawn their support for any reform they have forced the administration to opt for a plan that in the minds of many will only increase dependence on government and will not improve the current situation. Basically what I am saying is that doing nothing in the case of health care is not a good option for any that understand the principles taught by King Benjamin. Instead we should actively seek to promote a plan that would allow people to receive the medical and welfare support that they need while still helping them to regain their independence.
I think for my next post I will through out a couple of ideas about policies that might be affective. I have to admit that this one might be over my head. The implications of health care and welfare policies make it difficult to come up with a comprehensive policy that can be supported by all Americans. In other words, it will be difficult to come up with a plan that will meet the requirements stated above and still be feasible as legislation, but I'm getting excited about the challenge and you can be looking for my ideas in the next few posts.
No comments:
Post a Comment