Mark Levin and saving lives (and boobs)

I read a pretty good article on Relevant magazine’s website called “Christianity and Health Care Reform.” To me, one of the most interesting parts of the article was the comments that followed. There were a few comments from readers that live outside of the United States. I was fascinated to read their feedback because their mindset and how they approach the idea of healthcare is completely different than those of us who live in the middle of this debate. Those who commented genuinely did not understand why there was outrage. They appreciated that health care in their country was provided for them. They couldn’t figure out why a government would not provide this service for their people. One especially couldn’t figure out why Christians would be against reform and would not want their government to get involved within this arena.

Look, I understand that there are a lot of people that are against more government involvement in our lives. And that’s fine. I’ve never seen people protest the government for providing Medicare and Medicaid for people in need. And yes, I know that Medicare and Social Security are in trouble- but that doesn’t mean that at the core that these were bad programs in the first place. I’ve never heard an outcry from the people saying we should not have these programs to take care of the elderly. Odd. But regardless- of all the arenas we would support the government (that WE elect) being involved in, why do we want to keep them out of health care?? I am tired of health care being treated as a business rather than a public service. It’s your freaking health! Should I have the right to live a more healthy life than those that can’t afford to?

Often when I am driving home from Corinne’s at night I listen to Mark Levin. He’s one of those guys that spends most of his radio show yelling in a high pitch voice about how the country is going to the crapper because Obama is a communist, etc. I try to listen to people like that so I can hear the other side of the argument so I can at least see where both sides are coming from. A couple of weeks ago, he was making the case of how awful it was going to be if we had government run health care. He relayed a story about a woman who lived somewhere in Europe and her struggles with socialized coverage. Apparently, she found out that she had breast cancer. The doctors caught it early enough and performed a mastectomy and she is now cancer free. The issue came post-surgery. In her letter, she described the self-image and self-confidence issues she was having after the procedure. She was all set to have cosmetic surgery to help her with her struggles when she received a letter in the mail from the insurance company telling her that her claim was rejected because it was considered cosmetic surgery. Levin then drove the point home- “Do you see where our country is headed? This is our future!”

As I was listening to his spiel, I couldn’t help but think that in that particular case- the health care system worked just as it should have. I sympathize with women that have had to have surgery that has left them with what they consider a less than desirable body. I personally know women that have had mastectomies. But the real issue is- what should health care cover? The immediate threat was the cancer. And the health care system treated it and covered it. She was in danger of losing her life, and as a public service she was treated. I believe the self-image problems that were left behind are real. But I agree with the insurance company- it would be cosmetic surgery. And no one is telling her that she can’t have that procedure. They’re simply saying that she will need to be the one that pays for it. And I agree. Who would be able to say where it would end? Can you say the teenage girl that struggles with depression and self-image issues because she feels she is uglier than all the other girls in school has any less valid point? Are her feelings any less real? I’ve worked with high school students and I can say from my experience in talking with them that it is a very real issue. But I don’t think that insurance paying for ways to alter your body is the answer. The better answer is a correct teaching on where beauty comes from in the first place.

I was talking to someone yesterday that is getting married next month. Her fiancé works for the state and is currently paying over $100 a month on health insurance. When he adds her to his plan after the wedding, his cost for healthcare will rise to over $400 a month. If he adds her five year old child, the cost will be over $900 A MONTH. And somehow, there is an outcry on healthcare reform. It angers me that there are so many people struggling to pay bills already and now many are spending 1/3rd of their take home pay on the ability to keep their health. Shame on us.

From Health Care Reform to Robin Hood. And back.

The healthcare reform bill has generated a lot of passionate dialogue lately. I admit, I have taken part of some myself. My argument has not been for one side or another, however. I honestly don't know enough about what the bill actually will do to know whether or not I support it. I do believe our healthcare system needs reform, I just don't know that this will take care of the problems we face. And I certainly don't want to blindly support the bill or blindly oppose it as I feel many do. No, my argument is for the reasons we decide to take whichever side we end up falling on.

I guess what I have come to terms with is that, for most, the issue is not health care reform at all. It is about ideology. It's about whose role it is to do what in our country. It's about what we believe we are entitled to and what we are not entitled to as Americans or even humans in general. Without trying to cover every road that this one topic can lead us down, let me sum up where I fall in the dialogue with one example:

This week I overheard someone talking about the healthcare bill passing and how upset they were. It was your typical “our country’s going down the drain, I’m scared for our children” kind of talk. She then went on to talk about how her family (who both have full time jobs) is struggling to make ends meet because they are being taxed so much and the cost of everything just keeps rising and rising. And then in the same breath, she talked about the upgrades they are making to their home, the trip to Chicago they were planning this weekend, the multiple days of golf her husband is playing this week, and the shopping she did on the West Coast a couple of weeks ago. I'm not saying that one doesn't have the right to do any of those things. But let's not kid ourselves. Most Americans are not "struggling" to make ends meet. We may be struggling to afford the nice car we drive, the big screen TV we watch, the premium cable package we subscribe to, the vacations we take, our dinners eating out, our MacBooks, IPods, IPhones, our shopping, our golf, etc. But if we were honest, most of us are not struggling to meet ends meet. But many, including this individual, truly believe they are.

It is this thinking that I question. I have heard and read many opinions about what people think about the passing of this bill- all from people that already have health insurance and have enough money to live comfortably. I have lived in my parents basement for 2 ½ years now and still believe that I live above my needs. To me, the argument should be whether or not this bill solves the problem, not a defensive stance that says we don’t want to be the ones that have to sacrifice. If an outcome of this bill is that it helps people that are lazy and don’t want to work and will leech the system, then that’s a problem. Let’s fix that. But my suspicion is even if we worked out all the kinks and started up a system that was proven only to help those that really need it is that the majority of people that are against this bill would still oppose the new system if it caused them to sacrifice their wealth.

Many believe that it should not be the governments’ role to decide where to distribute our money. And yet the United States gives more as a nation in aid than any other country in the world. When our country has continually given aid to other countries throughout our history, why have I never heard this be an issue? One could argue that we had already given the people of Haiti enough money before the hurricane—why is that ok with us? Why is it ok that after the hurricane our government stepped in and gave even more of our hard earned money?

I guess I just can’t figure out why some things are overlooked and then there’s a huge philosophical debate over one issue when it’s already been going on this whole time.

I was thinking this morning about Robin Hood, of all things. Remember what a great story that was? Remember how we rooted for him and saw him as the good guy even though he was a thief because he was giving the money to the poor? I’m not a socialist. I promise. But because of some theological beliefs I hold, I think there’s a reason we cheered for Robin Hood. I think we believe what he was doing was right. And then one day we woke up and we were rich. And then we didn’t like Robin Hood anymore.

All I’m saying is this: I think money and entitlement can make us blind. I think if we really got down to the heart of the issue and what we believed to be true, how that should work out in our day to day lives might frighten us a little.

And for those of us that are Christians and believe God is the one that allows certain people to be in power… is it possible that God continues to work out his purpose regardless of who is in office?

Let’s not get so caught up with this world that we miss the more important one that is coming.