I was going to write another heavy post, but I think my friends and husband would abandon me if I did. For the past few weeks I haven't been able to complete a conversation without the words "gay rights", "1978", "testimony" or "racial discrimination" creeping in, even if the topic of discussion is about effective weight loss methods or stylish hairstyles. In the last month I've somehow found a way to incorporate serious issues into even the most lighthearted exchanges. Wow. Way to be a buzz-kill, Steph. Won't be shocked if I don't get any birthday party invites this year... "Hey, should I invite Steph to my party?".... "No, she'll probably make fun of us for decorating the house with DIY Pinteresting crafts and talk about how lame we are for making a fancy cake, then eat it with her bare hands alone in a corner sobbing about how we're killing the environment by using plastic forks".
To be honest, I think everyone is a bit emotionally drained. I even bought an US Weekly magazine to balance the scale (by the way, did you hear that Kristen Stewart (Bella) cheated on Robert Pattison (Edward)? Shocking.) So, instead of delving into harrowing topics that turn me into a fun-sucking Dementor, this week I'm going to talk about the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare (yes, this is me being fun. Poor Rivs.) This isn't a religiously divisive issue, but to me, it holds as much moral weight as any other political debate.
I think one of the main reasons Mormons (and most other Christian religions) are expected to be Republican is due to the party's reputation of being the defender of morality. In reality, both parties defend ethical convictions but have differing views on what issues hold moral weight. In essence, it all comes down to the way morality is framed. In the political realm, the only issues defined as moral dilemmas are gay rights and abortion. Because Republicans generally oppose these movements, the party is deemed the defender of moral virtue. But isn't caring for the sick and poor a topic of morality as well?
We've become so consumed with differentiating between Republican and Democrat that agreeing with just one policy of an opposing party is seen as betrayal. This has narrowed the scope of possibilities available to the American people, as political polarity has led many to believe that politics is a zero-sum game; if your party wins, mine loses. If your party is the 'moral' party fighting to defend religious principles, then mine must be in opposition to your religious beliefs. And that's not the way it should be. I view health care reform as government institutionalized charity, and I think that both Republican and Democrat should share the title of 'Moral Party'.
It is my opinion (and you know I have a lot of those) that giving a portion of what we earn to benefit those who have less is a moral obligation. Whether its government-mandated or not, I think that sacrificing income so that those in need can receive the medical care they deserve is, in fact, charity. I know that many of you will argue that taxes and charity do not equate, as charity requires agency and taxation does not allow for it. Although "charity never faileth", it is an unfortunate fact that voluntary charity has failed to care for the millions of Americans who are left sick, dying and in debt without means to pay their exorbitent medical bills. I believe that it has become our moral duty to patch the void that should have been filled by unconditional charity. While having government implement a sort of 'forced charity' is not ideal, it seems to be the only way to ensure that every American can enjoy the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
One of the great things about the Mormon church is that it practices its own form of 'affordable care' through tithing and fast offerings. By asking church members to donate a portion of their earnings to benefit the church and its individual members, the LDS church has become a great example of charity through taxation. Among LDS members, this is seen as an act of faith and moral duty. Although governments are comprised of imperfect people, why not support a system that attempts to mimic that which Mormons believe to be good and moral?
What are your thoughts on this issue?
The last paragraph was a MAJOR paradigm shift for me.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your sentiments exactly, as I have always felt that my choice to be a "Democrat" is as founded in morality as my friends' and family's choices to be Republicans. (Of course, these days I mostly feel my political choices are a crap shoot, but that's another topic.) I like your comparison of taxation to fast offerings, though I'm sure lots of well-versed Mormons have great arguments for that one. What if we called taxes fast offerings, though? Would they gain more acceptance?
ReplyDeleteEquating church donations with taxation is an interesting comparison. I had not considered that one, and it is thought provoking.
ReplyDeleteOne difference I see is that in the case of fast offerings, there is still an element of agency involved. I decide how much I am going to pay for fast offering, given the general guidelines. (Not so in taxation.) Even in the matter of tithing (10% of my increase) there is still a matter of individual conscience and agency. How do you define what is increase? I have heard many differing opinions on that. And if I don't pay my tithing, or my fast offering, the church does not come and confiscate my possessions to make up for the perceived deficit of what I "should" have paid, as the IRS might do. (Got audited by the IRS 5 years ago. They do not come across as being really full of brotherly kindness and charity, if you get my drift.)
One of the problems I have with health "insurance", whether it be private or government sponsored single payer type is that it does not allow for individual needs and preferences in health care. I had all of my babies at home. No "insurance" would pay for my midwife, even though the cost of my birth was less that 1/10th of the cost of a hospital/doctor attended birth. My sister has been able to solve a couple of serious health problems by using herbs and supplements. Those are not covered by "insurance", even though they are cheaper than the drugs she could take to treat symptoms rather that the herbs she takes to heal her body. I think if we are going to have "universal" health care, it should indeed be universal, in that it covers a more balanced and global approach to healing the body, and not just the "medicrat" paradigm. If I am going to pay for health care, I should be able to choose what type of health care I am paying for, just like if I am buying a car, I should be able to choose what kind of car I want to buy.
Being forced to buy "insurance", whether it is through taxation or mandate or whatever that does not meet my family's needs,and diminishes my ability to help my extended family in ways that they need, doesn't feel right to me.
Agency (never "free") involves consequences for choices. Should we remove the consequences of people's choices that impact health, including the financial consequences, totally? If we legislate healthcare coverage to make sure everyone has access, should we then outlaw cigarettes and alcohol, which are know contributors to disease? Should we punish sexual promiscuity - also a known cause of the spread of disease? Should we incarcerate everyone who is obese into weight loss interment centers because they obviously will be at higher risk for some diseases? Which sports should we eliminate, because someone might get hurt? Should we have a one-child per couple mandate because maternity care is a burden? Should we try to take away the causes for people needing medical care? Maybe being charitable means that we try to keep people from being sick and injured in the first place. I don't really know the answers, but I think the whole discussion is more complex than just whether or not we should be charitable in guaranteeing that people can pay for certain types of healthcare to treat conditions that they may or may not have control over.
Those are a few of the thoughts that come to mind. Since you asked, that is my two bits worth. :) Thanks for your great blog. I will be interested to read what others think.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey Steph, I like reading what you have to say. Its very well written. I think the difference between Church subsidized assistance and a nation-wide affordable care program is the measurement and qualification process. Ideally, the bishop knows his members in his congregation. He can get in personal dealings with them and can better understand their needs. Also, being a church, the bishop is entitled to a little heavenly help, via inspiration in some cases, not necessarily all cases. A broad, nation-wide, program would be a "submit this form and sign here" type of deal where some government assistance worker would "look over your application" and determine your need as seen fit. The principle of morality as it deals with charity and assistance is awesome, but relying on 300+ million Americans to be "honest" and fully evaluated on a "NEED" basis is sadly unrealistic. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a program, because I think there should be, it is a moral requirement, but its going to cost. -Matt
ReplyDeleteMy wife and I feel the same way.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how much of that is due to being raised in Canada?
I also enjoy your blog, well written and very thought provoking. I consider myself to be in the middle, enjoy pinterest, but am registered a Democrat. As you said there is no easy answer, or I think for that matter any way to try to fit everyone into a box, who qualifies for what, how to determine that honestly and fairly.
ReplyDeleteI read it and liked it. I hate to keep sounding like a broken record, but I am going to attach the Jonathan Haidt link again. He did significant research that addresses some of the issues you address in this piece.
ReplyDeletehttp://righteousmind.com/
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI wanted to also comment on the taxes-versus-tithes-and-offerings point you made. By the time I take allowable deductions I think I still pay more taxes than I give to the Church in tithes and offerings. I pay more taxes as a percentage of my income than those who are wealthier than I am, and more as a gross amount than those who earn less than me.
ReplyDeleteThe wealthy pay a lower percentage of their income because of allowable deductions that elected representatives have deemed to be desirable as an incentive for job creation in small businesses and so forth. The less affluent pay less taxes because elected representatives have determined a minimum annual income should not be required to pay as high a percentage in taxes because of an agreed upon poverty level.
The tax code in the United States is complicated, but has been determined through representation to be fair and if not fair, at least legal.
In order to change the code, representatives will need to act accordingly. For the time being, the existing laws reflect the redistribution of wealth according to the desires of elected representatives.
Because of this it would be tempting to change the representatives in order to change the tax code or formula for taxing the citizenry.
In 2008, eighty-seven new freshman entered the ranks of the U.S. Congress. The majority of these new representatives were elected on "no new taxes" platforms. The political makeup is shifting to the right and all indications are that the shift will continue.
As much as some people rue this shift, it is particularly troublesome because the bond market (comprised of pension funds and the money that lending nations are willing to lend) expects the United States to both increase revenues and simultaneously cut expenditures in order to remain credit worthy.
The right wants to decrease revenues rather than increase them. The left wants to increase spending rather than reduce spending. That combination is not sustainable. If the bond market stops lending, the United States defaults on her debt. Most nations that default print money and pay their debts with worthless currency. This is called hyperinflation. Dollars become worth less. This would have far-reaching detrimental impacts on all people, but especially those with fixed incomes.
So that is the tax side.
Tithes and offerings in the Church are based on faith, free will, generosity, and worthy work for those in need. Tithes go almost exclusively to building construction, maintenance and education. Offerings, which seem to be considerably less as a percentage of the total offering, serve the welfare needs of the poor, unemployed, and underemployed.
Self reliance (work and provident living) is a major key to the welfare system of the Church. Those in Zion are required to work if at all possible. The "dole" has been regarded as evil since the beginning of this dispensation.
So that is the tithes and offerings side.
The bottom line in whether a government or a Church is addressing individual needs, is that there must be a very strong component of work. Work leads to freedom from debt for the laborer and in many cases a modest surplus. Workers are then taxed, thus diminishing their ability to make free will offerings. If they then freely choose to give, their surplus has been narrowed, leaving them more vulnerable to the vicissitudes of life. It is a precarious circumstance that requires faith to give to others. Some workers respond to this by being less generous and also being opposed to taxation.
Steph Catudal Puzey, your sentiments, of wanting to care for others, are admirable, but as one who tithes and is taxed, this is a brief description of some of the conditions that I take into consideration with respect to contributions through the Church and to personal actions taken in the voting booth.
"It all comes down to the way morality is framed." . . .
ReplyDeleteSteph, I am a first time reader and plan to be a long time follower of your blog. I think you did a brilliant job articulating and clarifying the fuzzy gray line between ideals and their failed realization. Conservative welfare ideology--that those who have not are to be taken care of voluntarily be those who have--is a sound ideology and , in Zion, will work wonderfully. However, as you have noted: "Although 'charity never faileth', it is an unfortunate fact that voluntary charity has failed to care for the millions of Americans who are left sick, dying and in debt without means to pay their exorbitent medical bills."
I would like to point out that agency is not removed when charity is enforced through taxation. Under the law of consecration, while contributions were "voluntary" one would be exiled from the society if they "chose" not to contribute all they had. Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead when they "chose" not to pay all that they had. Moreover, while one may suffer jail time for not paying taxes, one loses their Temple Recommend for not paying tithes; between the two, I find jail to be a lesser incentive to "choose" to pay.
Without continuing the rant here, I just want to say that I'm glad to see your blog for both the evident pondering it facilitates in your readership as well as the validation it supplies to readers of your similar faith and philosophy. It's tough to be a Mormon who interprets the Gospel as having a different application than the culturally enforced norm.