I grew up in a family of two parents and seven kids. With seven children my mother was a fulltime homemaker and my father was the “traditional” breadwinner. We were far from a wealthy family. While growing up I can’t remember a time when my father didn’t have two jobs and there were times when he had three. My parents made the choice to have that many children. They also gladly lived with and accepted the consequences and responsibilities that resulted with their choices.
With that many children I probably could have qualified for the “free” lunch program at school. I can vividly remember being sent home from school with the application year after year and my father balling it up and throwing it away. When I got old enough to understand what the application was I asked my father why he threw it away? He said that it wasn’t the government’s responsibility to feed me, it was his. Don’t misunderstand me. I didn’t want the school lunch. Mom provided me with a healthy brownbag lunch everyday. I just didn’t understand, if the government was going to give us help, why Dad wasn’t willing to take it.
A few years later I began to understand. When I got my first job and I looked at the paystub I saw the difference between my gross pay and my net pay. Why was there such a big difference? If you’ve ever held and job and I’m sure 99.999999% of you reading this have, you’ve noticed this difference too. Social Security and taxes were taken out. The taxes that were taken, in a small way, went to help pay for the “free” school lunch. (I’ll refrain from talking about Social Security in this blog with the exception of mentioning that while Social Security is certainly social it is far from secure.) My Dad knew that the “free” lunch wasn’t free and that if he had accepted the help it would mean that someone else would be paying for what was his responsibility.
I know that taxes are a necessity. There are things that government has to do. It has to provide for our common defense for example. And there are things that only the federal government can do. I like that when I buy medications, whether prescription or over-the-counter, I feel secure that they have been thoroughly tested. The FDA isn’t 100%, but I know that if it weren’t there snake oil salesmen would still be running around. Knowing that the federal government has things it must do and things it should do I can live with paying taxes. Not that I have a choice in the matter. Well, I do have a choice, but I’d rather not go to prison.
A few nights ago Wolf Blitzer as moderator of the Tea Party Debate of Republican presidential candidates asked how society should respond if a healthy thirty year-old man who decided against buying health insurance suddenly goes into a coma and requires intensive care for six months. Notice please that Wolf said this man decided against buying insurance. This means that he was capable of buying it. He had a choice.
This is an interesting question. We Americans think of ourselves as compassionate people. And indeed we are extremely compassionate. No other country’s people are nearly as generous either in terms of the total amount of money we give to charities or the per capita amount we give. Yet we are also a people that believe individuals are responsible for the choices they make. If I were into skydiving and had made thousands of jumps where I got to enjoy the exhilaration and beauty each and every time I jumped the choice would be mine. If on my next jump the chords got tangled and the chute didn’t deploy correctly the choice to do that jump was still mine, and so are the consequences. For the prior thousands of jumps the consequence was the exhilaration and beauty I got to enjoy. Did that exhilaration and beauty make it worth the one time when the chute didn’t function as expected? I know that this is an extreme example, but isn’t it basically the same question that Wolf posed at the debate? The healthy thirty year-old knew prior to falling into the coma that choosing not to buy health insurance was a risk, but it was his choice. Should the consequences of his choice be thrust upon everyone else?
You may be thinking Mark that’s not a very Christian way of thinking. I certainly don’t want the man to die and I’m not saying that the man shouldn’t be helped. As a Christian I want my church to help him. There is no denying that Jesus would want us to help him. I’m asking is it the government’s responsibility? At what point does my compassion as a Christian become the responsibility of the government? I know that if the man were my son I would prefer to get a knock on my front door and hear I’m from the church and I’m here to help rather than I’m from the government and I’m here to help. I also know that the person from church would be truly compassionate while being prudent in how the financial help was spent whereas I doubt the bureaucrat would have the same compassion or be as prudent.
No comments:
Post a Comment