Beliefnet
Reformed Chicks Blabbing

That’s the question posed by Ed Schultz of MSNBC:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

He believes that Christians should support a Christian president and his plan to provide a public option. he believes that it’s a sin for Christians not to do so.Since Jesus never mentioned universal healthcare, we have no way of knowing what he thinks about the issue. The government has no mandate from the Bible to provide it and any attempt to determine a Christian view of healthcare has to be done on Christian principles alone.The Christian left believe that Jesus would support universal healthcare since he cared for the poor and the sick and called on his followers to serve the “lest of these” when we do so we are serving him. It is the Christian duty to provide for the needs of the poor and the sick. But is it the duty of the state to provide for their needs (according to biblical principles)? I would say yes. The state is obligated to provide for the needs of its poor. Does that include healthcare? I believe that it includes providing life saving care which we do provide in America. You can go into any hospital and they will provide you with emergency care whether you can afford it or not.But what about providing long term care? Care that would help determine problems before the trip to the ER, are we obligated to provide that type of care? Whether we are, or not, we do so in the form of Medicaid. We are providing for the medical needs of the poor. Are we obligated to do more than that? No, but if we as a society want to help those who don’t qualify for Medicaid it would be easy enough to do without the federal government taking over our healthcare industry.We do not have to have the public option to provide insurance for those who can’t afford it. Why in the world do we need the federal government to provide a tax payer subsidized healthcare insurance? We already have enough insurance companies available to provide insurance without the government being involved. If we want to help those who can’t afford insurance, then we can provide them vouchers to do so. We don’t have to take over the health insurance industry to fix this problem. As Bishop Harry Jackson mentions, it’s not just the idea of everyone being covered but how it’s going to be done. Destroying our current system to help some of our citizens isn’t a wise way to solve the problem.There is nothing kind or biblical about putting the federal government in charge of our healthcare needs. If we do so, economic considerations will dictate the kind of care we receive. How is that Christian? Nations that have universal care are more likely to have delays in care and the quality of care deteriorates. Doctors become scarce and patients die waiting for service. Only those who can afford to pay for a private doctor receive timely service. Knowing that more people will die because they will not receive timely treatment, why is it Christian to support a system we know will lead to more deaths and substandard care? Why in the world would anyone think it’s Christian to turn over our health to the federal government? Do you really want a government bureaucrat (who can’t be fired for incompetence) making a decisions about your healthcare needs? I know as a cancer survivor and being at risk of the cancer returning or getting breast or colon cancer in the future, I do not trust the federal government will be able to handle my healthcare needs in a timely manner. I would rather give control of my care to a company who was afraid of lawsuits than the federal government who faces no repercussions for shoddy service. And I want that for my children and my loved ones as well. I can’t see anything unChristian about that sentiment. (via)

Join the Discussion
comments powered by Disqus