I might add that I don't think our government will get a lot more intrusive. When you fill out a tax return they pretty much have access to all the info already. I have really worried over the last few years about the continued widening of the gap between the rich and poor. I remember Dwight Rigby talking about it when he was in the Stake Presidency. He likened it to times in the Book of Mormon and felt like this was really going to be the downfall of our society in the future.
Jacob laments in the Book of Mormon how great prosperity and wealth have led some to persecute the poor "because (they) suppose that (they) are better than they" (Jacob 2:13). This pride is a regular theme throughout the Book of Mormon and it divides the people.
In 3 Nephi 6:12, the people are distinguished in ranks according to their riches and learning. "And thus there became a great inequality in all the land" (3 Nephi 6:14).
Chris Henrichsen, who teaches political science at BYU, said "Inequality within our society is only acceptable to the extent that it benefits the least well-off. So if we are going to have inequalities, these inequalities should be ones that benefit everyone -- and in particular the most poor, the most disadvantaged within our society. A society that is marked with great inequality can not be democratic. Political power in such a society would be wielded by those with the greatest resources. It cannot survive without some sense of equality. Extreme inequality leads to collapse.The danger is when people who are wealthy believe that they deserve their wealth. In Mosiah 4, King Benjamin warns about believing a beggar deserves his condition. Thinking wealth is deserved and poverty is deserved are two sides of the same coin. "You don't have an absolute claim to that wealth," Henrichsen said, "because you live in a society that makes that possible."
It is a recognition of factors beyond ourselves in our accumulation of wealth. "Once we start to view ourselves as deserving of wealth we have, we soon begin to forget about God," Henrichsen said.
Henrichsen sees Mormonism as a balance between the individual and the community.
"Do Mormons believe in social justice?" he asked. "Essentially, I think the way we have to answer that question is 'yes.'"
With the church adding its fourth mission of taking care of the needy I believe this is certainly true. I wish we didn't have such vitriol going on between the parties because otherwise I don't think this bill would have been such a big deal.
So, even though Dad and I might sometime fall in the bracket where it costs us more money, and he will undoubtedly make less as a result of the new bill, I think it is necessary. Working at the volunteer clinic I can tell you that, yes, there is some abuse, but the majority just find themselves in a temporary bad place, (eg. even some people in our ward who have needed to come in at times). I will be glad when they can get decent heath care because what we give them is just a bare minimum and doesn't really help with long term problems which would be much easier and cheaper to treat if they could just a get a regular check up. People say that it will ration health care. Don't be fooled. We already ration health care in our country but we ration it by income and insurance, not by need, like they do in other countries. In most rankings of health care comparing nations we certainly do not have the best health care outcomes. Comparing infant mortality, life expectancy, access, etc. we usually rank way down the list of industrialized nations. I have always found this embarrassing. The older people seem to complain the most about government health care, and yet they are the ones who already enjoy the benefits of one: Medicare. I don't see this as a lot different then what BYU has decided to do. Everyone has to have insurance so they can get little things taken care of before they become big problems, and requiring everyone to have insurance has brought their rates down lower than the rest of the colleges in Utah. Hooray for them for being enlightened for the past 30 years or so. They required the same thing when I was there.
If anything, I would have liked to have seen the public option. I think that without a public option there is no check on the insurance companies and rates will certainly go up. I would also liked to have seen more checks on the drug companies (I guess that is why all there stock went up- they have good lobbyists). Since I don't think the bill went far enough and many think it went too far maybe that is a good compromise place to start and then we can see what happens and do some fixes. With our family's health history we are so grateful for the pre-existing condition clause. It will give Jon, Amy and Matt more options as they choose what kind of environment they want to work in. Before their choice was 1: some big company with good health insurance.
Well, that is my rant but it does come from a pharmacist helped by a physician. We are two that will definitely be effected but are in the business because we care for people, not about money. That is why AMA supported the plan. Most doctors hate what has happened to their profession over the years because of insurance. We will probably see more GP's instead of specialists because they will be reimbursed better. Illnesses will hopefully be caught sooner and preventive medicine will become more of the standard. I think it is a good thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment