Author's note: This post is heavy on Mormon culture and doctrine. Please let me know if you would like any sort of clarification.
Maybe I've spent too much time in New York/abroad/hanging out with foreigners/under-employed, but I don't really have a problem with the new Healthcare Bill/Law thingy. It's probably not a perfect plan, but it is a step in the right direction. For some reason, which I don't totally understand, it is a touchy subject. In my head I think what's so wrong about helping people get health insurance? Are people upset because the government is, heaven forbid, forcing people to have health insurance? (Aren't we mandated by law to carry auto insurance? No one seems to be bothered by this.)
I think the biggest issue that freedom-loving people have is that this health plan smacks of socialism. And with recent poor choices the government and large corporations have made during the financial crisis, I can see that maybe certain factions of the American public might be a bit concerned that this country is headed down the road that leads to sickles and hammers on our flag. I'm sorry, but I think that is a little extreme.
I've been trying to balance my opinions about socialism and the Mormon doctrine of a Zion community, i.e. the United Order. So I've been trying to do some research into what church leaders have taught about the Law of Consecration/United Order and the political/economic theory of socialism. Now, this isn't PhD level of research here, but these are my first thoughts.
On a very basic level, the two concepts have more or less the same goal (don't you love my vagueness) in providing a level financial equality for everyone. The difference is in the undertaking: socialism is equality by law, and Law of Consecration is by choice. Naturally, freedom-lovers everywhere would prefer to give by choice. And why not? Feelings of compassion and charity make us feel good and want to give more, as well as make us closer to God. However, feelings of selfishness tend to overcome desires to good to fellowmen, and thus socialistic ideals kick in to force people to give to others.
In my small research I came across talks from church leaders Marion G. Romney and Ezra Taft Benson that decry the dangers of socialism, and in the case of Romney's talk compared it with the United Order. Both talks were moving and informative, but it didn't make me want to write my congressman a scathing letter against healthcare reform. Both talks were written in the 1960's, and although I have little knowledge about the era, I do know that our country was reeling from the effects of the Red Scare and McCarthyism, and at the time socialism was indeed the Big Bad Wolf knocking at our door. Romney mentioned his fear for our country after watching many European nations adopt socialist ideals into their government. Scandinavian countries are indeed socialist, but not in the way of pre-WWII Germany, the USSR, or China. They certainly do pay a heaping amount in taxes (70%), but don't live under the rule of tyrannical dictators. Instead everyone gets to go to college and has free healthcare. True, Great Britain, France, Canada, and Japan have socialized programs like healthcare, but capitalism is still alive (although maybe not well) in all those, and other, industrialized nations. So while it looked that they were heading straight into Marxist ideals, it appears that a balance was struck.
That is the benefit of a two-party system, most likely: creating a balance of finding ways to take care of basic needs while watch-guarding the loss of certain freedoms. (And I am upset that both sides couldn't/wouldn't try harder to come up with a bipartisan plan.) So the question in my head that remains is: does the new healthcare law really limit our freedoms?
I don't have time to look at all news outlet's coverage of the Bill, and it is hard to find news providers that have unbiased views of the plan, and can explain in simple terms what it means to each individual. To me, it appears that government would still prefer us to get insurance through an employer. (And I don't know too many people who have declined that kind of coverage because it limited a personal freedom.) What is needed, and where the bill is (hopefully) headed, is providing a way for people to get affordable insurance if they can't get it through an employer. I've been in that situation. I understand that need. Would I have purchased a plan that was affordable? Hell, yes. $600/month (those COBRA rates given to me when I lost my job) is not affordable. The proposed exchange suggests I could pay no more than $220/ month. I could have paid for that.
Of course no one likes the thought of having to pay more taxes, and it looks like the wealthy are going to have to once-again pay the brunt of it. Luckily, I don't really fall into that category. However, after experiencing the life without health insurance and worrying about paying for my monthly prescription and/or catastrophic health problems, I feel okay about paying a bit more to avoid those concerns for myself and for people close to me. I feel that not worrying about potential bankruptcy due to staggering medical bills (for me or anyone) is a personal freedom. That is the attitude I hope to have when we have to fully live the Law of Consecration.
A friend pointed out this site:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/what-health-bill-means-for-you/
I think it is helpful in explaining the plan in the way that applies to your own financial situation.
I don't know/care if you agree with the above or not. This has been weighing on my mind, and I thought I would share how I came up with my choice to agree with the healthcare plan. I am sure it is not the perfect plan, but like I said above it is a step in the right direction.
After you got done reading this, you probably thinking the same thing as me: Pulitzer, right?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Good reading! We have some families in our ward that are socialism watch-dogs. Everything democratic-party carries that threat for them and they quote Benson all the time. I always wonder how much they take into account the time period that Benson was speaking in and the circumstances at the time that he was counseling against. They see these as "signs of the times" and feel that the end is really close. Rob and I have talked about the dangers of feeling that way. It's almost defeatist (sp?) - like, what is the purpose of trying to make changes if you feel like the end is near? This is related, for me, to some LDS people not caring about making changes for the environment and other legislation that would improve our nation, world, environment for generations to come.
Those are my thoughts...
I know you don't care. But I agree. I also like how you've explained - it's very unbiased, to the point, and clear how you've thought this out in your mind.
I haven't done as much research into the topic. But know how I feel. And this is it.
Post a Comment