St. Francis frequently admonished his friars to eschew domination and coercion. This is a theme we find repeated a number of times in the Admonitions. Thus, I was surprised when the Franciscan Action Network (FAN) recently endorsed coercive aspects of healthcare legislation.
The individual mandate written into the pending bill dictates all citizens purchase health insurance or face a fine and even imprisonment if they fail to pay the fine. Only a despot seeking to dominate others could love such legislation; the legislation contradicts Francis’ advice to avoid the desire to dominate and coerce others.
I asked FAN for clarification. In response to my inquiry, they said, yes, they supported mandated coverage. A representative wrote, “We would see this not so much as a constitutional mandate but a Christian approach to caring for one’s neighbor that makes for good law.” This gave me pause as I find it difficult to equate government coercion with a “Christian approach.”
In the Gospels the only religious group that petitioned a coercive government to carry out their wishes was the Pharisees. When we alloy our efforts with coercive government, I do not believe we are living according to the Gospels or according to the admonitions of St. Francis.
Fearing I might have misunderstood, I followed up with a question regarding the wisdom of mandating that one group pay the bills of another group. I posed a hypothetical: If my wife needed an operation I could not afford was I justified in using coercive force or even violence against my neighbor in order to make them pay for the operation? The answer? “We are supporting policy to practice the Gospel mandate of helping one’s neighbor.”
Once again the Pharisees soliciting the Roman authorities came to mind. A coercive government mandate seems inconsistent with the Gospel. I find it difficult to imagine the power brokers pushing healthcare legislation advocating a Gospel-based solution. If FAN desires coercive legislation for a “Gospel mandate,” it seems vital they make sure their allies are squarely on the same page or they risk serious unintended consequences.
If the bill fails will we have lost all hope of meeting the healthcare needs of the underserved? I don’t believe that is the case.
The Franciscan charism, properly directed, is exactly what we need in order to overcome barriers that prevent healthcare reform. Francis, the most beloved of the saints, can show the way. Rather than abandon the principles he advocated, we need to call on his charism to fire our passion to find real solutions. There are approaches to expanding healthcare coverage that do not include coercive government mandates and that do not require us to accept a Marxist agenda.
If we are fortunate, the ponderous legislation before Congress will fail to pass and the Franciscan community will be given a chance to lead an effort to design better solutions.
One relatively obvious option is to remove legislative prohibitions on the sale of insurance across state lines. Once existing prohibitions are erased, Catholics can found and support a national nonprofit insurance company that appeals to all Catholics and thus enjoy the benefits of a large risk pool.
With FAN leading the way, premiums could be priced to make it possible to insure many who are currently uninsured. As a result of ethical, non-governmental management, the waste, fraud and corruption attached to government mandated programs could be eliminated. And issues regarding conscience could be decided in a manner consistent with the Catholic Faith.
Such a national, nonprofit health insurance entity would most likely collaborate or merge with a similar insurance entity serving the Protestant community. Such entities could serve the entire Christian community and provide ways to increase the number of “neighbors” receiving healthcare coverage.
In addition, with its history of successfully running educational institutions the Catholic Church could pour resources into new medical schools and greatly increase the number of healthcare professionals available to serve the public.
The business of healthcare coverage and delivery and the Gospel mission of serving our brothers, sisters and neighbors does not belong in the hands of coercive Big Government. Sound healthcare programs must arise from the compassion and love that is our Christian heritage and the legacy of Saint Francis. Franciscans and Christians in general are not weak and in need of Big Government. The Holy Spirit will lead the way if we step away from coercive government models and open our hearts.
Before it is too late we need to consider very carefully the unintended consequences of Big Government domination and coercion in the light of Francis’ repeated warnings that such approaches carry moral and practical hazards.
Greg…you are spot-on on this on. FAN has clearly missed the mark, and has strayed from their founder’s teachings on this one.
I’d point out that a large part of this is based on a rumor that has become exaggerated from the fact.
The fact is nobody is going to go to jail for not having insurance; at worst they’re going to jail for tax evasion. The real change right now being considered is, should people without insurance pay extra taxes to help society pay for people without insurance. And I would say, from a social justice standpoint, that’s an unmitigated yes, and barely counts as coercion at all (because it presents the citizen with a completely legal choice for doing whatever is cheaper for that person- compare the insurance premium costs to the tax and it’s perfectly legal to just pay the extra tax).
I would point out that this is similar, in Islamic theology, to the Jizya, which is widely considered a very just tax once people look at it (replacing the income the government gets as their share of offerings in the Mosque with a very mild per-capita tax on those who don’t attend mosques).
Between 1882 and 1975, we had just such a national group insurance scheme available to Catholics. All Knights of Columbus had life, health, and unemployment insurance with high deductibles, backed by their local council’s ability to hold fundraisers when required.
In the 1930s, many states passed their own unemployment insurance, so that went unused. In the 1960s, companies began offering, with help from lowered taxes, employment-based health insurance. The combination of these two killed those arms of the Knights of Columbus insurance company- and today they only offer life insurance and annuities.
Ted, we will have to look at the final legislation. I believe the penalty of imprisonment is attached to failing or refusing to pay the fine. (If not people will just blow off the fine.)
In addition, there are tax ramifications that are significant and which, if not paid lead to penalties for tax evasion. For example, in my case, I have a high deductible, $10,000. So that is hardly a “Cadillac” plan — and yet I pay premiums that surpass the $8000 limit per year so I will be paying an additional 40% tax on top of the premiums for what is nothing more than catastrophic coverage.
It is a coercive piece of legislation that vests enormous power in the government over the most intimate aspects of our lives. The vital question is whether or not one agrees with government power and coercion on this scale.
(And welcome to the Taming site! Thank you for your visit.)
More in response to Ted’s comments.
The issue you raise of “social justice” is perhaps one of the most critical discussions we can have within the Catholic faith and as Americans.
What exactly are the terms of such “justice”? What are the rules we should follow to know what is just, what process will we use to arrive at an agreement regarding what is just? Who will be the arbiters of what is just and what is not just? And how will their power be managed?
In Taming the Wolf I suggest those seeking social justice can be too easily co-opted by partisan politics. Without sufficient rigor in their thinking they become subject to being used by those who seek unjust power. They become victims of those who would alloy their good intentions in order to satisfy their need for personal and political power.
Those who seek “social justice” too often seek their version of justice without coming to the table in a collaborative effort to meet the needs and interests of all involved-on all sides of the table.
Social justice, unfortunately, can become a buzzword for use of political power that too easily becomes unjust itself and fails to promote collaboration and love between brothers and sisters.
Too often it is based on the use of power by one group to take by from another by force. There is often a failure to promote and provide a collaborative process in which mutual respect and love and collaboration are sought. Too often “social justice” is based on imaginary wrongs and demonizing of others, which leads to more conflict not less.
Too often “social justice” has been co-opted by those who seek Marxist revolution, class warfare, and other results that do not benefit society in the long run. In this particular situation it is vital that FAN and others take stock of their allies very carefully.
In the example of health care legislation I believe FAN and others have made the mistake of allowing their good intentions and their caring concern to be co-opted by those who have other designs in mind.
One critical question to be addressed is when do Catholics support awarding coercive power to government and when will that support backfire and cause more harm than good.
The first step in sorting out these issues is a more inclusive and comprehensive discussion regarding what exactly “social justice” means and how can it best be accomplished.
In mediation circles there is a technique called a “learning conversation” in which people with varying worldviews come together to speak from the heart regarding how they came to see things as they do. The idea is to share “how I came to see things as I do” rather than debating positions. The end result is a more collaborative process and a more durable and satisfying outcome.
I propose FAN play the role of a neutral and convene a legitimate “learning conversation” between those with differing interests, seeking the best possible solution for all involved.
I believe that if this type of process had been engaged within the Church earlier the solutions on the table would be much more satisfactory and we would all be moving forward together to implement positive solutions.
We would not even be discussing the very difficult decision of ceding power over our lives to big government.
Greg – IMHO, it is those who are inexperienced in living in this world (paying taxes, taking care of employees) who most advocate government entitlements.
We’ve yet to see the final legislation alright- But the way the fine is worded in both the House and the Senate versions suggests that it will be levied as a part of the standard 1040 and 1040EZ IRS forms- and thus administered and judged by tax law. Yes, failing the pay the fine would result in imprisonment, as would refusing to pay any other income taxes, but failing to buy health insurance alone would not. Thus, this does NOT rise to the level of coercion, unless you think Ayn Rand was the second coming.
It’s important to point out we wouldn’t even be discussion ceding power over our lives to big government, if we hadn’t have already ceded that power to big business, only to have the free market utterly fail to provide the contracted for services at a reasonable price- your example of the $8000 premiums with $10,000 deductible is an example of that utter failure of the free market.
YES, a more subsidiarity-based solution would likely be better, but subsidiarity is a freedom denied us by Article I, Sections 8 and 10 of the US Constitution. As such, big business is given free reign to trample subsidiarity-based solutions such as the old high-deductible health care scheme that used to be provided by Knights of Columbus.
There are no doubt problems with the frameworks in place, which is why there is a consensus that reform is needed.
That need, however, does not justify putting in place bad solutions that sacrifice liberty and that call for massive government control including coercive mandates — not to mention the establishment of a multitude of government panels.
History can teach us the cost in human suffering that comes with coercive big government. The story has never ended well. That is why our Founders placed limits on government — limits that are being severely challenged in this legislation.
In a follow-up blog post I apply the mediation model to the situation to see if it can provide Franciscans with insight that helps them evaluate a course of action to follow.