Skip to main content

For the past year and a half, I have been heavily involved with the campaign for Utah Governor Gary Herbert’s Healthy Utah Medicaid expansion alternative. I do this not because it will benefit me, because it won’t. I have health insurance. But I didn’t 5 years ago when I needed a kidney transplant. I was working part time, going to school part time, and acting as a full time caregiver for my niece and nephew because both of their parents had to work full time in order to provide for them. Without Medicaid, I wouldn’t have been able to get the surgery, even with all of the charity help I received. I just want others to have the same chance I did.

But while getting support for a charitable, compassionate and financially sound program like Healthy Utah, seems like it should be easy, it isn’t. Entrenched conservative dogma and distrust of the federal government has turned what should have been a non-partisan slam dunk into fierce ideological war. That’s why I was so overjoyed by the presence of Presiding Bishop Gary E. Stevenson at the press conference announcing the finalization of the Healthy Utah plan, and by the following statement issued by the Church:

“We recognize that providing adequate health care to individuals and families throughout Utah is a complex and weighty matter. It deserves the best thinking and efforts from both the public and the private sectors.

“While the economic and political realities are being debated, we hope the discussion and decisions taken in this matter will be consistent with the God-given principles regarding care for the poor and the needy that in the end benefit all of His children. We reaffirm the importance for individuals and families to be as self-sufficient as their particular circumstances allow and recognize that the lack of access to health care can impair a person’s ability to provide for self and family.

“We commend public officials for their efforts to grapple with these difficult issues and pray for their success in finding solutions that reflect the highest aspirations of society.”

Of course this doesn’t constitute an official endorsement of Healthy Utah by the LDS Church, and it would be wholly inappropriate for me, as a member, to present it as such. It’s a declaration of the LDS Church’s beliefs and standards of caring for those in need, very much in line with the October 2014 General Conference talk by Elder Jeffery R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve, in which he charged members to do what they can to help. But, speaking only for myself, I believe that the only plan for closing the coverage gap currently under consideration by the Utah legislators that is consistent with these principles is Healthy Utah. In my opinion, the “Do Nothing’ option of rejecting all federal funding (which thankfully Gov. Herbert and House Speaker Greg Hughes consider unacceptable) blatantly violates all of them. The alternative proposals (such as Senator Allen Christensen’s SB 157) fall short on at least some levels. Let me explain how by running down the principles discussed:

 

  1. “EFFORTS FROM BOTH THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR”:

Healthy Utah is a public program which benefits and utilizes the private sector by giving those in the coverage gap access to insurance from the private insurance market.

 

  1. “BENEFIT ALL HIS CHILDREN”

Healthy Utah benefits the poor by giving them access to insurance coverage, and respects the taxpayer by bringing back to Utah the maximum possible amount of our taxpayer dollars. Alternative proposals fall short of both of these goals, bringing coverage to fewer people and rejecting huge amounts of Utah taxpayer money.

 

  1.  AS SELF-SUFFICIENTAS THEIR PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES ALLOW”

Healthy Utah included reasonable co-pays and premiums which encourage personal responsibility, but do not as people to metaphorically “run faster than he has strength” (The Book of Mormon, Mosiah 4:27). Alternative proposal do not respect circumstances and ask exactly this. By reducing the coverage to only those at 100% of the coverage gap, these proposals force those at 101-138% to pay higher premiums and deductibles, with the only help coming from ACA subsidies that were never intended to be enough for people at this income level.

4.  “THE LACK OF ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE CAN IMPAIR A PERSON’S ABILITY TO PROVIDE FOR SELF AND FAMILY”

 

This one is obvious: all proposals other than Healthy Utah leave a large number of people without reasonable, affordable access to healthcare. Healthy Utah even helps people to become more self-sufficient through the much discussed Work Effort which helps those who are unemployed or underemployed find employment or gain employable skills.

Again, I wish to stress that the conclusions drawn here are entirely my own. I’m not suggesting the LDS Church endorsed Healthy Utah, or that Mormons are obligated to support it. merely that, fortunately, Healthy Utah fits all of the principles they did endorse. And unfortunately, the other proposals do not. All of the other proposals are, in my opinion, based at least in part on an ideological belief which looks down on those in the coverage gap and condemns them as lazy, “takers” or in any other way unworthy of help. To this I respond with the words of King Benjiman in Mosiah 4:16-18

 

16 And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.

 

17 Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—

 

18 But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.

 

Frequently I hear conservative Mormons counter these sorts of scriptures with an assertion that for us to be blessed for our charity, it has to be voluntary, not government mandated. In my opinion this line of thinking is not only flawed, but carries an inherent selfishness which is contrary to the spirit of charity. It clearly states that charity is about getting blessings for doing it, not about truly caring for those who need it, which I submit is a far greater betrayal of Christ-like concepts of charity than government compulsion is. Second, so many of the same people loudly using that argument are just as loudly asserting their right to legislatively mandate their concept of morality. It makes no sense that we are morally justified in imposing our morals when it comes to who can get married but not on using taxes dollars to care for the needy. I can’t speak for anybody else, but my marriage is infinitely more personal and sacred to me than my taxes are.

Even those who are stuck on LDS concepts of “self-sufficience” have nothing to complain about here. Healthy Utah is structured to include a work requirement (the most popular reason to prefer it to traditional Medicaid in the Dan Jones poll which shows Utahns overwhelmingly support the Governor’s proposal). This is not at all unlike LDS welfare programs which encourage doing our part to care for own needs (but also encourage helping those who need it).

In the end, I don’t think I can sum up my case better than one of my favorite LDS leaders, Dieter F. Uchtdorf of the First Presidency, did:

 

“Whether we are rich or poor, regardless where we live on this globe, we all need each other, for it is in sacrificing our time, talents, and resources that our spirits mature and become refined. This work of providing in the Lord’s way … cannot be neglected or set aside. It is central to our doctrine; it is the essence of our religion”.

 

Paul Gibbs is an award-winning independent filmmaker and professional video editor from Taylorsville, UT. He served a full-time mission with the Church audiovisual department from 1994 to 1996, and is currently the Sunday School President in his Ward. He married Rebecca Gardner in the Salt Lake Temple in June 2013. His documentary, “Entitled to Life”, about Utahns in the healthcare coverage gap, has been seen by over 5,000 people and lead to a grant from MoveOn.org which took him to North Carolina and Florida to make similar documentaries.

Featured Image by Medill DC

2 Comments

  • I’ve read many things on this blog with which I agree and disagree but this is an affront to every sensibility I possess. I am compelled by that affront to respond.

    I’m glad this blog exists. It is a valuable source of news items in my daily read. I simply shake my head at the various homosexual and other related behaviors discussed here. I marvel at the attention they get but I have no interest in other’s such affairs—deviant as I believe they are.

    In like manner, government has no business meddling there either. But this, this blatant and utterly transparent attempt to justify an ends-justify-the-means argument is frightening in its deceptive use of scripture and quotes to move the weak to agreement. Frankly, I believe the author truly believes what he writes but has not fully reasoned his thoughts due to a lack of classical education.

    Wolves may appear in the finest and most sincere of sheep’s clothing, however, their teeth will eventually shred the fool’s flesh. As the scorpion said to the frog, “It’s my nature.”

    Under the charade of charity espoused here lies a basic truth: You cannot justify theft by delivering the stolen goods to charity. And, government programs always move from the power they currently hold to more power, inefficiency, and political (read vote-getting) benefit for those who push for the programs. Politicians no longer debate principle but only local pork benefit. Why? You know why. Their only allegiance is to reelection, with rare exception.

    There is a solution to healthcare: Abolish every government hand and subsidy involved with it including laws associated with the insurance industries. Put the bill back in the hands of the patient to be reimbursed by insurance. Allow a truly free medical market to flourish and you’ll see prices tumble. Doctors will, again, become free to practice medicine rather than the AMA/FDA/government mandated idiocy we have today.

    Some doctors have already opted out running cash only practices and flourishing. And lest you think they are only for the rich, a little digging finds most offering payment plans and greatly reduced rates.

    Many people are taking care of their own medical needs by becoming healthy using both ancient and modern modalities. Yes, I value modern established medicine if I have a broken bone or need stitches. Most everything else I can take care of myself including the modern diseases of cancer, diabetes, etc. The need to rely on AMA doctors is as much a myth as the need for government “safety nets.”

    They aren’t “nets.” They are black holes unnecessarily gobbling up massive amounts of resources for the benefit of politicians and those who seek control over the masses. And control they have. Our nation has become a nation of pigs at the trough. We were once a nation of self-sufficiency, self-reliance, and confidence. Now we crawl, emasculated, to the governmental hand that feeds us. We should be ashamed of ourselves. No politician would ever dare speak such words to voters who are addicted to government largess. But I will because I value the truth more than the honors of men.

    Government has granted to itself the power of force out of character with any notion the Founder’s had. In fact, it was that very kind of force they were fighting against. Now it is but few who recognize those who twist scripture and the quotes of general authorities to justify the unrighteous dominion warned against in Doctrine and Covenants Section 121:37 and 39.

    Our system of education has excommunicated the likes of Frédéric Bastiat and others upon whose philosophy of justice our Founders relied and, I believe, who the Lord raised up to inspire our Founders. That excommunication has deprived our current generation of the knowledge of wolves who come with sweet words from their mouths and handcuffs in their pockets.

    If it is morally wrong for a man to steal a car from his neighbor because he is on foot, why then is it not equally immoral for the town to pass a law for the benefit of the man such that the town accomplishes the theft for the man? These fundamental principles divide those who believe in liberty and those who believe in the force of government. How can one believe in the latter and maintain a testimony of the Lord of Persuasion?

    The end does not, according to any reasonable interpretation of the Gospel of Christ, justify the means. Twisting scripture or appealing to emotion to that justification are futile gestures in the light of truth. The Lord has made very clear the notion that compulsion has no part in His Gospel. And yet, here we are debating not whether but how much compulsion is desirable. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

    Ask me if I would like to donate to the cure of your illness and I will consider it. Appeal to your priesthood authority for welfare and I will gladly increase my donation to help. But do not cause government to use its coercive power to rob me for your good. And, please, do not sweet-talk the weak or uneducated to the same end. You do them no good and you continue to weaken a nation that was, for a very short time, a light on a hill. Whether committed by federal (called general by the Founders) government or state, coercion and theft is not inspired by the Lord notwithstanding your false label of charity.

  • tom says:

    Why doesn’t the Church officially weigh in on this most important piece of legislation of our times. After all, the bill seems to dovetail precisely with Church teachings?

Leave a Reply