From a Christian point of view, the virtue of compassion is rooted in the character of God and exemplified by the saving work of Christ. His was an example (though not merely an example) of ultimate compassion, giving completely of himself not out of compulsion but out of pure sacrificial love and devoid of political motivations. It is a model of compassion that we can only live out analogously because we fail to meet the standard of pure selflessness. For Jesus, he willingly chose to lose when he had already won. He is God! We strive, and with God’s power we achieve, but due to the fallen state of things, someone inevitably encounters our weaknesses. But we still seek to be compassionate.
Caring for society’s most vulnerable is part of our mission as the church and one that Christians take very seriously and act upon on a daily basis. The poor, the widows, the children—these are a few segments of society to which scripture explicitly challenges us to give of ourselves. And God’s church understands that the gospel without a cup of cold water isn’t very good news. Could we do better? Obviously.
As it pertains to the recent passage of health care reform, some left-leaning Americans suggest that conservative, especially Christian conservatives, lack compassion because some—ok most—have been opposed to the health care reform bill in question. They abide by the bold assumption that the health care reform bill sits above other acts of compassion. It is better than creating jobs, it is better than smaller piecemeal options like opening of the state borders to more health insurance competition. It is better than simply working at the elimination of fraud and wasteful spending.
What would Jesus do? What would he think?
Some liberals think he would do what they did on Sunday night, the Lord’s Day as one representative reminded us. That was disorienting. He said it was time for the representatives to “walk by faith” and pass the bill. Would Jesus do health care reform as they have penned this legislation? Probably not. Jesus would turn over the tables in congress and tell them to stop making deals that squander funds that could help those in need…..if Jesus were invited to comment on the dealings, that is. The bottom line is left-leaning Americans seem to be saying that godly compassion necessarily includes health care insurance. Furthermore, they seem to think that health care is a need that overrides other acts of compassion and ought to be raised to the level of rights. Maybe Jesus would ask us to be better stewards of our financial resources or maybe he would ask us to view the economy as a fishes and loaves opportunity. None of us can know for sure what Jesus would say, he’d probably call us all out as fools. But what we can know is that we are often faced with moral conflicts and the methods of compassion can also conflict.
I know of no Christian conservative who takes joy in anyone lacking health care resources. But economic utopia is not possible on this side of eternity. Safety nets are in place like Medicaid to help families in need, and I know because I benefited from prenatal care through Medicaid in 1992-93. And by the way, it was top-notch. Yes, we can probably do more.
Like jobs and education, healthy families and hunger-relief, access to health care is something we would love for everyone to have. Which one takes priority? To suggest that health care is a natural right is to reduce rights to consumer goods. Rights cannot be sold or traded or granted, they can only be recognized in that they are inherent to being human. But a non-evolutionary view of humanity is required to agree with that statement. Or maybe it is true that Darwinian theory impacts absolutely everything, including health care policy. Public funds can only go so far and private industry will pass on additional expenses and tax hikes on to consumers because business doesn’t exist primarily for benevolence, and it shouldn’t because then it ceases to be a for-profit entity.
Compassion comes in a variety of forms, some better implemented than others. We might also ask who has the most to gain when compassion is implemented. The dignity of an individual is infringed upon when, in the name of compassion, someone profits from exploiting what others lack. But at this point, compassion is no more.

March 23rd, 2010 | 11:30 am | #1
Thanks for the thoughtful post, Sarah. I’m one liberal who doesn’t think anyone has a right to health care. I just think that the right thing for a rich country to do is to provide it. Christ told us to care for the sick, and we simply haven’t been caring for many of them. So I view providing health care as an act of obedience.
The dignity of an individual is infringed upon when, in the name of compassion, someone profits from exploiting what others lack.
I’m not sure how this is an argument against health care. If anything, it’s an argument against health insurance companies and for a public option.
None of us can know for sure what Jesus would say, he’d probably call us all out as fools.
Amen to that!
March 23rd, 2010 | 4:42 pm | #2
The sick in our country do receive care. Even illegal immigrants receive care. To suggest that this is a question of care vs. non-care is to misstate the issue, because the majority of Americans do get care when they really need it. The question we are really asking is how make that care the most affordable and accessible and of the highest quality to patients. Does this require universal health insurance? Some believe so. But that is hardly the only option, and may even be a very bad option, depending on how said insurance is instituted.
March 23rd, 2010 | 8:39 pm | #3
Many people who don’t have insurance don’t go to the doctor until they have an emergency, by which time much damage may be done. Others, like my own sister, who has worked all her life, rack up huge bills when they need operations. The Republicans were in power for eight years and never even broached the idea of helping these people. It’s a little rich of them to complain now about Obama’s attempt.
March 24th, 2010 | 12:12 pm | #4
Not exactly true. Medicare Advantage, the expansion of HSAs and SCHIP all happened in the Bush administration. Could they have done more? Absolutely.
I don’t think Obamacare is really about expanding coverage to those who don’t have coverage. I think it is much more about extending government’s role in the adminstration of health care in the U.S. If this was about expanding coverage primarily then why does the large majority of the expansion that does take place in this bill not begin until 2014?
If this was just about expanding coverage, the provision of catastrophic health care to those without coverage with high deductibles and a mechanism to subsidize HSAs to help with these deductibles could have happened at a much lower cost and with much less government control. The absence of any meaningful tort reform and portability in this bill (which would lower costs and help people to obtain health insurance) also speak to this point.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact