Category Archives: Health Care

Voting for Grace

This election season is about to come to a close.

In this last week, there has been an uptick in the intensity and urgency coming from both sides as Tuesday’s election approaches.

I have noticed, as I have been listening to and reading some of the chatter about the election, that “values voting” has risen quietly to the surface. These “values” are, at least according to the recent ad released by Mike Huckabee, as “Marriage. Life. Freedom.” (Consequently, the Mike Huckabee ad was an ad that came out during the summer, funded by the group Catholics Called to Witness.)

When these values are listed, we are immediately supposed to know that the most important and dangerous issues facing us as a nation are gay couples who wish to be recognized by the state, abortion (which has been legal for forty years) and religious liberty. Religious liberty being that value that is already written in the constitution.

I have become increasingly frustrated with these “values,” and the claim that many Christians make that these are the only values that matter. Especially since, as a lifelong Christian, and a “values voter” myself, I cannot recognize any of these values as actually having any urgency.

Instead, when I go to the polls, the “value” that I will use to make my decision is that of grace.

Grace, of course, is a biblical value. Paul, in particular, is quite pushy in the grace department, which makes him rather soft on crime/sin. “You are not under the law, but under grace.” (Romans 6:14) Being bound by grace means that we (Christians) are bound to Jesus Christ, who gave us the “free gift of eternal life.” (Romans 6:23) This also frees us from the rather dire consequences of our actions, namely death for sin.

Voting for grace means ignoring the call for individual responsibility, because grace undermines individual responsibility entirely. In the system of individual responsibility, each of us is on the hook for all of the decisions we make, including the bad ones. Under grace, there are still consequences for our actions, but those consequences are softened. When we sin, we often have to deal with the immediate consequences of our actions, but we are offered opportunity for grace and forgiveness.

Our country is on an “individual responsibility” kick. There is a belief permeating our politics that whatever someone’s station in life, they earned it absolutely and without question. This seems true for the very poor as well as the very wealthy. This position is naive at best. Most of us who are wealthy are not wealthy just because we worked hard. Lots of people work hard who are not wealthy. The wealthy are wealthy because, somewhere along the line, someone helped them. It doesn’t mean that they haven’t made good decisions or choices. Many have. But wealthy people are not islands. And lots of people make wise choices.

Likewise, those of us who are poor are not poor just because we are lazy and dependant on the government. Lots of people are lazy and don’t end up completely destitute. More likely, those of us who are poor are poor because we are trapped in a system. The system is particularly hard on those who are physically and mentally disabled. Other people who are poor have simply encountered bad luck. To be sure, some poor people have made bad choices. But lots of people make bad choices.

Voting on grace means that I believe that our fortunes are shared – both good and bad. When my neighbor has to sleep outside because he does not have a home to go to, that is on me. (About 3.5 million of our neighbors every year experience homelessness.) When my neighbor gets sick, it is my responsibility to make sure that she is cared for. (About 46 million of our neighbors are still without health insurance.)

Many pundits have claimed that this election is more about the economy than it is about values. They say this as if the economy is without values. This election, I intend to vote for grace. This means voting for an economy that will care for the poor, the sick, and the displaced. This means ignoring the false ideals of individual responsibility and realizing that I am my brother’s keeper. Jesus Christ gave freely his own life so that I might live. The very least I can do is give a few tax dollars so that the poor might eat.


Comments Off on Voting for Grace

Filed under Health Care, Life, Politics, The Poor

Sell All You Have, and Take Responsibility for Your Own Damned Life

The other day I read this article over at the NY Times.

In it, Op-Ed columnist Nicholas Kristof, along with his college roommate, Scott, tells the story of how Scott was diagnosed with prostate cancer. To give a quick and unfair summary (you should go read the piece yourself, if you haven’t), Scott quit his job, and to save money, he quit health insurance. He did not get annual physicals. He ignored early signs of a potentially serious problem. He finally got treatment when he spiked a fever and his health was obviously deteriorating. Scott had Stave IV prostate cancer, a diagnosis that likely could have been avoided if he had sought regular preventative care. (Prostate cancer, if caught early, is often something that men live with. It can be slowed and contained in many cases.)

So today, Scott is still uninsured, but is being treated for his cancer. His medical bills are in excess of half a million dollars right now, and he has qualified for charity care. The hospital is covering his expenses. Some doctors are intentionally not billing him. He is being taken care of.

Now, let’s be clear here. Scott made a stupid and irresponsible series of decisions. He could have afforded health insurance, but chose not to get it, due to the cost. Ditto for regular physicals. Ditto for getting early symptoms checked out. At ever step of the way, he made the decision that most benefited his short-term financial desires, without taking into consideration the very real financial (as well as physical) risks. He knows he made the wrong choices. He admits it. And he very well may pay with his life.

In the piece, Kristof asks whether we want to live in a country where a person’s mistake or irresponsible behavior lands him with a death sentence. He writes, “We all make mistakes, and a humane government tries to compensate for our misjudgments. That’s why highways have guardrails, why drivers must wear seat belts, why police officers pull over speeders, why we have fire codes. In other modern countries, Scott would have been insured, and his cancer would have been much more likely to be detected in time for effective treatment.”

The response to this article has been, not surprisingly, mixed. Some (lefties like me) say that this is the reason that we need affordable health care to be available to all people in the United States.

(Side note, Scott could have afforded insurance, and chose not to buy it. There are many Americans who are not so fortunate as to be able to afford insurance.)

Others (who are more right-leaning) claim that Scott is essentially getting what he deserves. He was irresponsible. He screwed up. Why should anyone else take responsibility for his irresponsibility? Particularly, why should government take responsibility for a person’s irresponsibility?

You reap what you sow, in other words.

Now, here’s the thing. Some of the people responding with the hard-line responsibility jargon are also those who are deeply committed Christians. I do not mean this in an ironic sense. They are compassionate in their private lives. They love God. They care for their neighbors. The believe and depend on the grace of Jesus Christ.

And they are undeserving of that grace.

But now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” Romans 3:21-24

Most Christians believe, in one way or another, that they are ultimately dependent upon the grace of God. It is a grace that is given freely. We acknowledge that we are sinners, and that we are ultimately undeserving of the grace that is given.

Why, then, do we insist on personal responsibility when we are all recipients of grace of which we are fundamentally undeserving?

When I was in high school, the phrase WWJD became popular. “What would Jesus do?” became the popular question to ask. The answer was often some variation of “be nicer.” It was important to show compassion and love.

Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.”” Matthew 19:21

Jesus sets up a prerequisite for those who would follow him. FIRST, you care for the poor. You sell ALL YOU HAVE and you give the money to the poor. You do not, presumably, ask why the poor are poor, or accuse them of laziness. You give them your money. THEN you follow Jesus.

I will say this. I have fallen short of this prerequisite. I have a lot of stuff. I make sure that I am taken care of before I give a buck to the homeless guy in the Kroger parking lot. Then, if I do give a buck, I usually assume that he is undeserving of that dollar, because he’ll probably spend it on booze.

I fall short all the time. I make mistakes. I am a sinner. And I am thankful for the grace of God. I know that forgiveness is a possibility for me, though I have done nothing in my own life that actually merits that forgiveness.

Why are we content to live in a country in which grace cannot be extended to those who live in it? The Lord’s prayer asks, “forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.”

We all have debts; whether they are spiritual, financial, or personal, they are there. And many of us count on pure grace for forgiveness. Because we know that we cannot possibly earn that grace. We are too far in debt.

The difference seems to be, in the case of much of the Christian Right, that grace and salvation can be extended to those in the great hereafter, but so long as we have flesh on our bones and blood in our veins, each of us is on his or her own.

When it comes to health insurance, or food stamps, or housing, or childcare, the Christian (and Corporate Capitalist) Right seems to forget the grace that is freely given and insist that everyone must take responsibility. No really. Live with the consequences of your choices, even if those consequences are death. The ideology that Mitt Romney is putting forth in his presidential campaign is the super individual. We are all responsible only for our own, individual actions and decisions. If someone makes a poor choice, so be it. Let him rot.

You know, treasure in heaven.

And if you don’t have health insurance, I guess you’ll cash in on that treasure a lot sooner than those of us who have made all of the right decisions.


Filed under Health Care, Life, News, Politics, The Poor

Happy Mother’s Day, from Mitt Romney’s team

Several weeks ago, I wrote this post.

Now we are approaching Mother’s Day, and what would the “holiday” be without an ugly rehashing of the dramaz from the Romney campaign.  (To be fair, this is paid for by the “Non-coordinating” Super PAC, Restore Our Future.)  Watch, and enjoy.

I don’t really have anything to say about this right now that I have not already said.

But I will say this:

As the Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney took about 500 police officers off the streets.  So Happy Mother’s Day, to you mothers who live in dangerous parts of town.  Just teach your kids how to duck and cover.

During his term as Governor, Mr. Romney also made cuts to the budget of fire safety equipment – about $2.5 million.  So Happy Mother’s Day.  Send your kids to school with their own fire extinguishers.

As President, Mr. Romney claims that he would find $500 billion to cut from the federal budget, most of which would come from social programs such as Medicaid.  So Happy Mother’s Day, poor working women.  Here’s hoping your kids don’t get sick this year.

Other programs that would stand to lose funding under Mr. Romney’s proposed budget cuts are:

health research – Happy Mother’s Day, moms with sick kids.  Cancer won’t be cured this year.

education – Happy Mother’s Day, moms who can’t afford to send your kids to private schools.

food inspection – Happy Mother’s Day, moms who count on safe and affordable food products to feed their children.

housing and heating subsidies – Happy Mother’s Day, moms who want to put a roof over your kids’ heads and keep them warm at night.

food aid for pregnant women – Happy Mother’s Day, expecting moms who want to eat.

Happy Mother’s Day, from Mitt Romney’s team.

Comments Off on Happy Mother’s Day, from Mitt Romney’s team

Filed under Babies, Health Care, Life, News, Parenting, Politics, Pregnancy, The Poor, Toddlers

The Mommy Wars Go Political

By now, most of us have heard the Hilary Rosen gaff that Ann Romney “never worked a day in her life,” and the shit storm that ensued.

And now, as usual, the coverage of the gaff itself has clouded the actual point that Hilary Rosen was trying to make.

You see, Ms. Rosen was not attempting to make the claim that mothering is not a legitimate and (for some people) rewarding life choice, as many of her critics allege.  Instead, Ms. Rosen was pointing out the fallacy that Mitt Romney has fallen into, namely, holding up his wife as an example of an average American woman.  Ann Romney may be a wonderful mother who has worked hard to become a wonderful mother to her five children (I have absolutely no means to know what kind of mother she is – also, THAT’S NOT THE POINT), but one thing she is not: average.  Mrs. Romney may have informed opinions about the economy and how the government can best support women, but again, she is not a representative of the average American woman.

I appreciate the plight of the stay-at-home mom.  I really do.  I am a work-from-home mom myself, and so I understand that it is work – in the sense that staying at home with kids does not constitute sitting on the couch, eating bon-bons and watching questionable daytime television all day.  It is exhausting and demanding and under appreciated and certainly not financially rewarding.  (Imagine if mothering were covered, say, under the Ledbetter Act.)

The trouble I have with the media’s (and the online MOMMY WARS) response to Ms. Rosen’s gaff is that they are missing the fact that even the choice to stay at home with your kids is an incredibly privileged position.  Most households require two incomes to really function.  I work at home largely so that we don’t have to pay for child care.  But between my income and David’s income, there are months when we squeak by.  AND WE ARE NOT POOR.  We’re just… doing okay.  Mrs. Romney may have worked every day (the work of being a mother), but I guarantee that she never had to give up movie night with her husband because they couldn’t afford a babysitter.  She never had to make a choice between sending a sick kid to day care or staying home and possibly getting fired from a job that she could not afford to lose.  She never had to take her child to the emergency room and wonder how in the world she was going to pay for it.

[Also, (and I don’t mean to put too fine a point on it), Mrs. Romney responded to Ms. Rosen’s gaff by claiming that “motherhood” has been her “career.”  In fact, this is not the case.  You see, a career includes the possibility for advancement and/or progress.  So, unless Mrs. Romney climbed the corporate ladder of her household to become the head wife and mother, then being a stay-at-home mother is not her career.  It is her work, her vocation, her calling.  But it is not her career.]

The problem here is that Ms. Rosen’s statement has been made (by the media and the Romney campaign) into a statement about motherhood.  It was not.  Ms. Rosen’s statement was actually a statement about economic disparity.  Mitt Romney has been pointing to his wife not as an informed expert, but rather as a person who, because she is a woman, knows “women.”  Ms. Rosen’s poor word choice does not change the fact that Mitt Romney’s wife does not actually stand in solidarity with women who have had to make impossible decisions for their families because their economic position does not allow them the luxury of real choice.

I’ve seen the phrase “Mothers need to stick together” splashed across the internet lately in response to this whole mess.  And I think that is true to a certain extent.  I believe that those of us who have the choice to take maternity leave or to stay at home with our kids or who never have to carry our sick kid to the emergency room knowing that we can’t pay for the treatment that they will get – we have the responsibility to stand in some kind of solidarity with the mothers who have to make the impossible decisions.

Mitt Romney and his campaign are proposing a budget that would cut programs like Medicaid and food stamps.  This means that the mothers who have to make the impossible decisions will find themselves stranded.  Mrs. Romney may be a mother, but she does not stand on the side of the mothers who really need support and solidarity.


Filed under Babies, Health Care, Life, News, Parenting, Politics, Pregnancy, The Poor

A Tale of Health Insurance and Fear

Three years ago, David and I were living in Nashville.  I was working for the year as a chaplain in Baptist Hospital while David was both finishing his dissertation and teaching at a small college.  I got health benefits as a part of my employment and David was still on student insurance, but my job was a limited, one-year term, and David’s school was not in a financial position to offer its employees health insurance.

So we were content, imagining that we would figure out the next step when we crossed that bridge.  We weren’t planning on having kids for another several years, and so we expected that if we encountered lean times, we could just button down the hatches and make due.  (You see where this is going, right?)

Well, one early morning in May, I woke up, not to enjoy my first cup of coffee, but to pee on a stick.  I had to set my resolve that if two lines appeared, the first words out of my mouth would NOT be “Oh shit.”

The second line did, in fact, appear, and I can distinctly remember the nauseating rush of emotions that flooded my entire person: excitement, joy, and overwhelming fear.  I decided to stay home from work that day, and I spent most of the day on Google trying to figure out just how we were going to manage.  The baby would be due around Christmas/New Year’s.  My job (and insurance) would come to an end at the end of August.  COBRA benefits would cost nearly $500 a month, and as a pregnant lady, I would simply not qualify for any individual plan.  David’s student insurance would end in May because he was scheduled to graduate and ditto on the COBRA.

That evening, David got a call from an old friend letting him know that a faculty position would be opening up in his department at Christian Brother’s University, and he thought that David should apply.  Long story made short, David got the job, we moved to Memphis and signed up for the employee health plan halfway through my pregnancy.  We managed to transition pretty seamlessly into life in Memphis.  We found our midwives, and Maggie was born at home in January.

Things worked out for us, but I am painfully aware of just how differently it could have gone. Between the two of us, David and I had one PhD (David’s), three Master’s degrees (David has two, I have one), and two Bachelor’s degrees.  We were both willing to work, and anxious to work.  But we were still thisclose to a real financial quick sand.  And, honestly, in some ways we are still there.  We are comfortable, but a medical crisis would send us over the edge.  If I couldn’t get enough work to meet That Number that we need one month, things would get scary, and fast.  I’ve thought about the possibility of getting a “real job” instead of working from home, but I quickly realized that we couldn’t afford it, with two kids needing full-time child care.

This is why I’m so bothered by Mitt Romney’s recent statement that he’s “not concerned” with the “very poor.”  His reasoning for this statement is that the very poor have safety nets (although it’s my understanding that these “safety nets” are the entitlement programs that he wants to defund and get rid of).  He’s concerned with the 90 to 95 percent of Americans who are struggling.  What he doesn’t seem to understand is that NO ONE wants to depend on the safety nets, and a great deal of Americans are a heartbeat away from the status of “very poor.”  We have come to the point where we are all making major life decisions based on where/when we will have access to health insurance.

We have a system in which the “very poor” are trapped, because at the first moment that they break out of that particular classification, the safety nets quickly disappear.  People who are on Social Security Disability Insurance fear losing that status, because once they are no longer on SSDI, they must find a 40-hour/week job with benefits just to get medication that they need. Pregnant women fear being fired, and when the kids do come, many of us cannot afford to work and put our kids in day care, but we also can’t afford to not work.

Mitt Romney claims that he will repair the safety nets if they need to be repaired.  But he is fundamentally missing the point.  The system needs to change.  The quick sand of poverty needs to be stopped with revolution in education, health care, and child care across the board.  We’re not talking nets, here.  We’re talking foundations.

Many people have said it many different ways, but Mahatma Ghandi is credited with phrasing it thus: “A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.”  Mitt Romney should be concerned with the very poor, because in the end, that is how we will all be measured.

1 Comment

Filed under Choas, Health Care, Home Birth, Life, News, Parenting, Politics, Pregnancy, The Poor