I have been listening to some of the arguments by those who are opposed to universal health care. To be fair, most of them are not opposed to everyone having health care like they themselves have. Rather, they are opposed to the proposed plan to bring it about. I get that. However, what I don’t get is the sheer lack of theological reflection in any of the arguments.
More or less the arguments sound like these (actual comments)…
You say that now but it would be a different story if you were waiting to get a root canal for weeks or having your chemo delayed
Chad how long will you keep your job if the company you work for doesn’t make a profit?
The destruction of the profit model will provide a dis-incentive for the best and brightest to become doctors, nurses, and researchers. The country with the best healthcare in the world (US), will quickly sink into mediocrity.
But how long will pharmaceutical companies stay in business and invest billions in research and development for new treatments if their profit margin evaporates? How many hospitals will keep their doors open if they don’t make a profit? The only problem with socialism is that at some point you run out of other people’s money to spend…..
For all of its inefficiencies, the US healthcare system drives almost ALL of the medical innovation for the rest of the world – and most of the inefficiencies are driven by the current regulation and lack of reasonable malpractice law (with caps, etc.). Putting the government in charge of 1/6th of the economy (healthcare) will do little to improve care of the currently uninsured, will drive down the quality of cares, drive up wait times for all but acute lifesaving procedures, and will kill off small businesses (which provide 75% of jobs in America).
Long waits, no choices, and inferior care. Nearly all medical innovation takes place in the United States today, so the consequences of this lil experiment would be much greater than when this mistake is made in other countries.
“health care in the hands of suits and ties” breeds competition. its the free market. competition = better product.
These are just a few of the arguments posed to me in a recent discussion on Facebook about the problems of universal healthcare and the plan on the table that seeks to do something about it.
One thing that should be patently obvious from the above arguments is that none of them are thinking from inside a life of faith. Rather, they all are thinking from a business/corporate model which is based foremost on a model of scarcity. It is a model that suggests the world has only so many resources and we must grab what we can when we can and at what cost we can so that I am not left out in the cold. It’s a model that is thinking from within the autonomous self, the I who must secure his or her “rights” at all costs. It first considers how this could potentially affect me, and if that affect is less than desirable it must be abandoned. It’s a model devoid of Jesus.
Now it must be said that no system is nor will ever be perfect. As such it would be a mistake to place our hope and trust in any plan devised by any one. I am under no illusion that the plan being debated right now will fix all the problems or that it will not create new ones. I get that.
What I also get is that millions are without health care of any kind and have no hopes for getting it. The poor, the unemployed, the sick, the “alien and stranger” among us (all the people Lou Dobb’s can’t stand), etc. They are also the people without a voice. Who will speak up for them? Who will be their advocate?
My hope is that the Church will rise up and speak for the least of these who cannot speak for themselves. My hope is that the Church, despite the prospect of having to make sacrifices, some even costly in more ways than one, will stand up and say, “This is the way of Jesus.”
I would like to see less of Christians demanding their “rights” and more of demanding justice for all.
I would like to see less of the Church arguing out of a corporate/business model and more from a theological one. If you disagree with the proposed plan at least do so rooted in the way of Jesus rather than rooted in an individualistic, capitalistic, nationalistic posture.
Health care is no more a “right” than life is. It’s all gift. We Americans sometimes have a hard time recognizing this. We are accustomed to thinking we are entitled to certain things (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, for instance). As Christians, however, we proclaim a different story – one that surrenders our rights, picks up a cross and serves the other, even if that means death. While it is true that most of us will never have to endure what our Lord did, we still balk at the thought of even dying to ourselves. We refuse to lay down our “rights” for others.
And the world watches on, waiting to see how the people that confess Jesus as their Lord will respond. I’m sad to see us sounding more like just another talking head in a suit and tie than a dirty Jew with a basin and towel.
Share this Post
Filed under: Church, Politics | Tagged: Church, government, health, Jesus, medicine, Obama, Politics, Theology, universal health care
Chad,
I here you on this, and I understand your frustration. However, I’m not sure that we should expect a theological response to the healthcare debate. Americans aren’t trained to think of it that way. In his address last night, President Obama reasoned that his plan for “universal” healthcare (it will only cover about 97% of people) is a good idea b/c it provides better care for all at less expense. The truth is that the whole notion of “healthcare” relies so heavily on captialistic market assumptions that it is nearly impossible to speak of healthcare otherwise.
As a Christian, I don’t place a lot of hope in the government to find a way to provide healthcare for all. What I do place a lot of hope in is the church and the ability of the church to subvert market/capitalistic understandings of healthcare. How can the church witness to the world an alternative way to care for people? A way that relies not on monetary incentive, but that is incentivized by the love of Jesus. What practices can the church cultivate that care for the poor and the marginalized that current healthcare policies leave in the dust? What should the church be calling on the doctors and nurses in our own ranks to do in such a time as this?
Those are the questions that Christians ought to be asking.
Chad,
I appreciate your open-minded look on this issue. I also appreciate your desire to follow the way of Christ. However, I don’t believe that universal health care is the answer. I don’t think it’s responsible to ask hard-working Americans to pick up the tab of others. My heart breaks that people aren’t covered and can’t get the care that they need. I personally believe that it’s the middle of the road class (between the lower and middle class) that suffers the most from this. I was without insurance my last two years of college and still paying on some medical bills from that time. My step-brother is a hard-worker and has his own business but can’t provide healthcare for his family. Certainly a sad situation. That said, I don’t think that it’s the taxpayers job to provide it for him. I also think that it’s unfair to suggest that someone isn’t thinking theologically to be against this.
If a Christians wants to support someone then by all means. I believe that’s the way of Christ and he cares for the welfare of others. As Christians, we should do the same. The church has always supported healthcare. The UMC has supported two great hospitals, Duke and Emory. However, I’m doubtful that the kingdom of God will be made known through the efforts of our government.
Hey Josh,
I join you in doubting that the kingdom of God will be made known through the efforts of our government. However, it can and will be made known through the voice and actions of the Church. One of the ways the world knows who Jesus is is by watching us. What do we support? Who do we advocate for? What are we willing to die for? How do we love?
When Christians are speaking out against universal health care and basing their arguments on their rights or on their unwillingness to sacrifice, we look less like the Kingdom of God and more like the world – particularly like corporate America.
By all means lets strive to come up with better means and ways to care for those among us. But let us not resort to arguments like “I don’t want to pick up the tab for them” or “Our lines will be longer and our care will be less than it is today.” These aren’t arguments founded in any theological reflection but ones primarily rooted in self-interest and/or fear.
peace.
Tom,
I agree with all that you said. And no, I don’t expect those outside the church to be making theological arguments. The comments I posted above were mostly from Christians (or perhaps all of them were).
All the questions you pose we as Christians should be asking are right on target. If the people (Christians) opposed to the proposed plan were asking those sorts of questions rather than just railing against it because they fear they might have to pay more in taxes or stand in line longer, we’d be making progress.
Chad -
My opposition to Universal Health care has nothing to do with finances and everything to do with Jesus. The more we move towards big government the more we move toward people depending on government and governments are inherently evil even if they start off meaning good.
It’s not just those in need that start to depend on the government but those with wealth will start t depend on the government to take care of those in need when they should be doing it (speaking of the Church).
Maybe the answer is the Church (all denominations of Christ followers) opening more hospitals to care for those that can’t care for themselves. This encourages dependence on the Bride of Christ and less on the government aka the “world”.
Grace and peace brother.
I realized I started to sound a more libertarian than intended. Governments have a purpose and they are appointed by God. I just believe while a new government program may be initiated out of compassion it will become bureaucratic and a means to protect and get votes rather than really caring for those in need.
For fairness, capitalism is also worldly. However, while it runs on freedom of greed it also allows for freedom of the Church. I think a lot of the reason we are debating this now is because rather than the Church thriving in this freedom it has embraced the consumerism itself (speaking in generalities of course).
I agree.
We have also equated capitalism (and by default, democracy) with the economy of God. As if what is good for America is also good for God. As if what America does, God is doing.
Tony,
Now that is an argument I could get behind.
At the same time I find myself supportive of any attempt by any entity (government or otherwise) to ease the suffering of others. I am willing to see where this leads and pray it helps the millions who are without help at the moment. It will also be an opportunity for all of us who are pastors or leaders in the church to further press our congregations about where our faith actually lies and to constantly critique the “empire” we find ourselves in.
grace and peace.
I agree that the church should be using theological ethics to make their case on this issue. That said, thinking theologically about this asks the question, IMO, “What should the church do about this” instead of “what should the government do?”
This is a difficult issue. I applaud Obama for seeking to change healthcare and make it more accessible for the people. I’m just not convinced that UHC is the way to do this. Thinking theologically can also mean thinking fiscally responsibly. Think about all the ministries that the church would love to support. Are we questioning God’s abundance when we cut our budgets?
Good question, Josh.
I certainly do think there are times when we cut our church budgets that we are doing so responsibly and because we seek to be good stewards. But I think the majority of times that this happens it is based fear rather than God’s desire for us and based on a model of scarcity rather than abundance.
While preaching from Eph. 1:1-11 2 weeks ago I noted how Paul prays for the church to have “the eyes of their heart” enlightened so that they might know the hope to which they have been called. I shared with my congregation that a life of faith is about learning to see with our hearts (hearts that are beating with God’s) rather than the eyes in our heads. When I look with the eyes in my head I can find many reasons to doubt, to fear, to question who is really on the throne. I specifically mentioned our budget and our committee/council meetings and asked us to consider whether we are looking at these things with the eyes in our head or the eyes of our hearts.
No doubt that there will be times when we look with our heart that we will prayerfully determine it is time to cut a budget or a ministry. That is pruning and is designed to bear more abundant fruit. My experience in church budget meetings, however, leads me to think the opposite often happens.
What do you think?
grace and peace.
This is a pretty serious charge, actually. I will openly admit that there are many things I have disagreements about with many of the more conservative Christians I know, but the vast majority are not the selfish bastards you portray them to be. I know too many of that give generously both of their time and money.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to be good stewards of what we have been given, and frankly it’s not selfish to be resistant to having to pay higher taxes toward a system that will have questionable results.
I don’t see how this is an argument based out of fear, as you claim. It seems to me that there’s nothing anti-kingdom with trying to provide services to those that need them in a timely and affordable manner. I also don’t think it’s wrong to ensure that the system isn’t unfair to business owners, doctors, etc.
As far as “picking up the tab for them”, the fact of the matter is that we already are in many ways. And I don’t think most Americans are opposed to most “safety net” carte blanche, but I do think Americans are rightly skeptical about the federal government’s ability to provide workable, cost-effective solutions to these types of problems.
Phil,
What you consider a pretty serious charge above was my reaction to those people (people claiming to be Christians) who are basing their argument against universal health care on noting more than their own personal comfort and peace of mind. Like one of my friends on FB observed yesterday:
.
That is the attitude my post is pushing back against.
It’s a post directed towards Christians to 1) point out the lack of theological reflection I have been hearing in all the arguments against universal healthcare and 2) to encourage those who do disagree to stop basing their disagreements (if they are Christians) on nothing more than a self-serving attitude.
For instance, see one of Tony’s comments above about fearing too much faith in government over and against the Church. Now that is a theological argument and one that I think Christians can make without sounding like selfish, fear-mongering, defensive capitalists.
peace
It’s difficult for me to understand why more secular nations do a far better job of taking care of “the least of these” than this so-called Christian nation.
This nation ties everything from health care to education to political representation to even justice under the law to one thing — the size of a person’s income.
To me, denying health care is exactly like abortion. In both cases we allow children to die because it’s convenient and costs us less money.
To those who make the government = inefficient argument, those other, secular nations spend far less to get more health care than we do.
We have the most economically inefficient system of any industrialized country. That’s reality.
For example, according to Wikipedia, “in 2006, per-capita spending for health care in the U.S. was US$6,714; in Canada, US$3,678. The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in that year; Canada spent 10.0%.”
And that 10% covers 100% of citizens in Canada, while we spend 15% to cover 80% — with a great number of that 80% having inadequate coverage.
30% of my insurance premium goes to run pay employees to ration my care; in a pay-for-performance environment, the more care an employee denies, the more higher their bonus. That’s the free market, right there.
We need to move away from political theory and into reality. We need to move away from greed and toward following the teachings of Jesus.
I’m not willing to lay down my “rights” for others. Though all of our rights are essentially gifts from God, we are speaking on a governmental-worldly topic. We wouldn’t be able to talk about these things if we laid them down. I would have to disagree with that concept.
The rest of your argument is compelling, though I’m not so sure that the government is centering it’s stances on “Christ-like” concepts. This may, very well, be where some of our problems lies.
lie*
Josh,
What “rights” do you consider “gifts”? I would argue that Christians are people who do not see themselves as having “rights.” I can’t lay claim to or call something my “right” when I view even life as a gift from God.
As for laying down whatever perceived rights we have, don’t you think that follows more closely the way of Christ? If that isn’t what you were trying to say forgive me.
grace and peace.
Jjoe -
thanks for your comment.
And thank you for modifying “Christian nation” with the words “so-called.”
Thanks for the stats as well. I did not know that.
peace,
Chad
Thanks, Chad.
Sometimes I wonder if the evangelical view of personal salvation is at the root of some of our country’s inability to do more for the the poor and marginalized.
In other words, “it’s about me and my personal relationship with God and I’m personally saved and therefore I’m always saved regardless of what I do after the alter call.”
Switching paradigms, just the other day I was on a Calvinist blog where they were discussing the passages about it being hard for a rich man to enter heaven.
The blog host acknowledged it was a problem, yes — but only for those who didn’t believe in predestination.
In other words, the elect don’t need to worry about the poor. It is only those of us who believe in free will who need be concerned about following the the teachings of Jesus.
I am not sure how someone on one hand can take scripture as the literal inerrant Word of God, and yet on the other hand say that the sticky parts don’t apply to them personally.
Great blog you’ve got here!
Jjoe,
Good thoughts. And I agree.
I was just in a conversation today with a very conservative “evangelical” pastor who said he didn’t care about a particular issue we were discussing so long as he is right with God. His exact line was, “As long as I am right with Him, it’ is all good.”
In my experience that attitude is pervasive in American Christianity.
Oh, I placed “evangelical” in quotes above because I think many evangelicals are mere caricatures of what that really means. I consider myself evangelical but go to great lengths to define that as it is meant to be defined – as one who announces GOOD NEWS that Jesus is Lord of heaven and earth. In that sense, I want to believe we are all evangelicals.
grace and peace.
A couple of other thoughts…
I think that by putting the healthcare of everyone into the hands of the government, we are giving the government way too much power and control over our lives. Control that should be given to God. I think it also builds a trust that the government will take care of all of our needs and that also is a trust that should be given to God.
I really think that the area of caring for the needy lies in the hands of the community, the church and business. And as we are required to pay more and more taxes to the government we are less able to give “our first fruits” to the Lord.
Several of the other arguments from a market driven basis also hold water in that they have to do with being good stewards and that those that don’t work don’t eat, etc. Those really don’t persuade me as much, but they are valid arguements.
I am much more concerned that as we put more and more trust in the government, to whom shall we turn to for our salvation…
That concerns me much more.
-Blessings
MIke,
Thanks for your thoughts. I agree with the overall sentiment. I find myself trying to navigate the tension between not placing too much trust in any man-made institution or entity but at the same time wishing to give my support and blessing to any entity or institution that is seeking justice for those without a voice.
I agree entirely with you about the concern over from where our salvation comes. On Memorial Day weekend a well-meaning member of my church decorated our sanctuary and placed flags on our altar table, one of them right next to the brass cross that stands on it. I had the opportunity to share with the gentleman that did it how this might send mixed signals to those who come forward to pray. Are they praying to Jesus or America? Where is their help coming from? He got the message and was more than happy to move the flags.
I say all this to simply say that this is and will be an ongoing battle and dialog in the church. Those of us who are pastors can do a better job at separating God from country so our congregations are under no delusions from where their salvation lies.
grace and peace.
Chad
As a Canadian I must say that I am both mystified and intrigued that there is any debate among Christians on this topic at all. The universal health care that we enjoy up here in the north was the brainchild of pastor named Tommy Douglas who was overcome with compassion for the poor. He decided to become a polititian and even created a whole new political party in order to turn his vision into a reality. What we experience today is by no means perfect but you will be hard pressed to find one Canadian who would trade it for what you guys have.
Incidently, in the last 15 years my mother has gone from one illness to another to another. Degenerative eye disease, asthma, knee replacement, hip replacement, and now the possibility of Rheumatoid arthritis. My dad is in his mid-50’s and is still working in a labor intensive construction job and they manage to make ends meet for now. In the States my parents would have been financially ruined even if they had insurance because there would be no way they could have afforded the rising premiums.
I guess all I’m saying is that it’s because a Christian believed that the compassionate teachings of Jesus could mold Canada’s political landscape that my parents could maintain financial stability in the midst of increased health concerns. Meanwhile a large portion of Americans are just one serious illness away from financial ruin. Fascinating.
Chad you’ve got a great blog here man.
Peace.
Jasen,
Thanks for dropping by and leaving a comment.
Peace to you and your mother and father. I am thankful, as I am sure you are, that they are getting cared for in their time of need.
I think you are right about most Americans being just one bad illness away from financial ruin. I have many such people in my community and church and it’s a depressing way to live. It’s difficult to steer the conversation away from talking about everyone’s health issues and their fears of what tomorrow will bring when the money is gone.
Where in Canada are you? I have some good friends just north of Winnepeg. I’ve had the pleasure of visiting a few times – beautiful area.
grace and peace
I’ve never met a Canadian who didn’t like their health care system and look with some kind of dismay at ours and the arguments against health care for all citizens.
Trust in God is easy to say, but it’s hard to put into practice when you’re losing your home because of medical bills. To say that I should trust business over the government is something I cannot understand.
Why should I trust any organization whose entire reason for existence is to make a profit from me? Look what happened when we trusted the free market to control wall street.
Trusting business is trusting greed. I trust greed will always exist, but I do not trust greed to do the right thing.
Nor do I trust churches to do the right thing. There are too many churches involved in politics, too many churches focused on bigger buildings, too many churches which see the poor as something that will always be with us and thus not our problem but God’s.
A fundamental flaw in the American psyche is our distrust of government by the people. As individuals we are cowboys, rugged individualists, who look out for themselves. I trust Martin Luther King over John Wayne.
I agree with you to a certain extent on what you have said. I have met some Canadians who dislike their health care system, but I have also met some who like it… the difference is if they got timely care or if they didn’t.
Honestly, you have to trust in God in all things, but especially when those medical bills are stealing your house… I mean who else are you going to trust in that case.
Finally, to think that the government has any purer motives than either business or the church is just untrue. I have known many people who were involved in either local, county or state politics as well as a few in national politics. Most of them started out with great ideas to reform and fix things… they come back either corrupted or disgusted with they way government operates.
I have seen a greater impact on poverty and the needy in my area from private business, private individuals and the church. The government in my experience just makes things more difficult and many times (though not always) just wants to throw money at the problem, which rarely fixes things permanently.
-Blessings
Honestly I don’t see any one of those institutions as any better than the other. Whether you’re talking about government, business, the church (I mean the institution not the true spiritual kingdom), or just individuals, the effectiveness is the same. All have have an equal potential for good or evil because they’re all made up of the same thing. . . equally imperfect people. My point is that I will use or regect any of these institutions in every circumstance in life based on how well they assist in establishing God’s justice and mercy in the world we live in. It would be silly to automatically favor one over the other, my only concern is which one will be most effective in accomplishing the end result.
Time has proven this to be true for me: the institutional church is either incapable or unwilling (or both) to extend itself to make sure that all people in our society have their healthcare concerns looked after so I move on to another institution that either can or will.
I think that what you have said is partially true Jansen, but I would differ with you on two points:
One, we must be careful to follow God’s plan in who we trust to take care of the poor and the needy, and my interpretation (your milage may vary
) is that the role of the government is not to take care of the poor and needy, God planned for communities, business and the church to do that. You may not have the same interpretation, but that’s where I am coming from.
Second, the traditional church has many times, in the past, set up ways of taking care of the poor. There is a good book by Alvin Schmidt called “How Christianity Changed the World” that exhaustively documents this throughout history. Some of the author’s conclusions are a little weak, but his research and most of his conclusions are top notch.
I think what we are seeing is that when government expands, the church retreats, or maybe the church retreats and government expands, not sure. Instead our modern church needs to stand tough and expand to take care of the needy, and the modern church is starting to do that. Perfect solution? No. Better than government run universal health-care, in my opinion, yes.
-Good discussion
-Blessings
Good points Mike but I still question your perspective. Exactly where does this interpretation on Government’s role come from? I can only assume that when you use the word “interpretation” that you’re refering to scripture in some way but I can’t recall any passage that says Nation States can only look after certain things and then the christians in that nation will look after the rest. Jesus instructed his followers to look after the poor and the widow but there’s not one injunction that I can think of that say’s government shouldn’t get involved.
Also, I’m not exactly sold on you’re Big Government=Small Church theory either Mike. The people of God retreat because we’ve chosen to abandoned the compassionate heart of God and persued our own selfish desires. I don’t think it’s right to blame our lack of obedience on the size of government. I hope this doesn’t sound too harsh Mike because you sound like a man with a very compassionate heart but your opinions about state-run healthcare sound to me like they’re based more on the Anti-Socialist mentality of American politics then on scripture.
But most importantly Mike I need you to help me understand this: Why should I care where the help comes from? Yes I want to see God’s people do whatever they can but why should I not want the Government to participate? It’s like the man who refuses to be lifted out of a flood zone by helicopter because he insist’s on waiting for “God’s” help instead. That’s at least how I see it.
Peace
Jasen
Excellent questions. I’ll take them each in steps.
Interpretation is referring to the scriptures. And your right their aren’t any specific passages I can think of off the top of my head, I would have to look them up, but I think we are to an extent saying the same thing. Jesus instructs his followers to look after the poor specifically because he didn’t want people to rely on the government to take care of them…He wanted them to rely on Him. I think that is the key to understanding my position. I’m not saying people need to have more faith or anything like that, but that their faith shouldn’t be in the government.
As far as big government = small church, I’m not saying that is what has to happen, I am saying that is what has happened, recently. Government expands it’s role and the church retreats from the government’s expansion. And I agree 100% with you, I think if the church were doing more to help the needy the government would expand less. So I am with you 100% on your thoughts. I see more and more people wanting to throw money at the needy, but not actually get out and serve in the soup kitchens. I see this attitude in myself as well.
As far as anti-socialism… well maybe, but only in respect to the fact that I think reliance on government is a bad thing if it removes your reliance on God.
Probably our biggest difference of opinion will be in the final area. Where something comes from is always important. A good example is the tax on cigarettes in our country. A portion of the taxes on cigarettes in our country goes to cover the medical expenses of children without insurance. I think you see the problem… if people smoked more, then children’s medical expenses will be paid for, but more smokers die from cancer. So if more people quit smoking, then there are less cancers, but children don’t have health care.
If the government spends money to take care of the needy but by so doing causes them to trust less that God will take care of them, then I think that we have to question where the health care comes from.
Money doesn’t appear out of thin air and all of these causes and effects should be considered. As long as I get cheap goods from Wal-Mart who cares that they are made in sweat shops in China… (I have no idea where Wal-Mart gets its goods, just a made up example)
Maybe that will clarify where we agree and disagree.
-Blessings
Jasen and Mike –
Great discussion. Sorry I have been out of the loop for a few days. Trying to get caught back up. Been following along, however.
grace and peace.
“Jesus instructs his followers to look after the poor specifically because he didn’t want people to rely on the government to take care of them.”
I don’t get that he said that specifically because he didn’t want people to rely on the government. Relying on the government for health care at that time would have been unimaginable, in the first case.
In the second, would I tell my daughter to feed the dog specifically because I didn’t want my wife to do it? Or simply because the dog needed to be fed.
In general, I don’t see the “limited government” Jesus that is culturally popular right now. I don’t see Him being a fan of dog-eat-dog capitalism.
I think if Jesus came back today, looked around, and saw that that perhaps the most Christian nation on the earth treats ‘the least of these’ worse than almost any other industrialized country when it comes to health care — especially how we tie it to a person’s income — he’d have some very strong words for us.
As I just posted on the eternal damnation thread, in the context of Matthew 25:31-46, practically every American is bound for hell. We should thank God that salvation is by faith, because our works fall far short of the life we are commanded to live.
Ironically, our view of salvation by faith alone is a strong argument that government, not churches, should be tasked with health care.
Hey there,
i would not trade the Canadian Healthcare system for anything else. Its cost effective, about 1/4 of the cost per person in the USA. It has its problems (like any system) but it is a decent system that was initiated by a Baptist preacher decades ago.
People do not go broke attempting to get care, whether a double lung transplant or minor surgery. Nor do we have to worry about health insurance when we are in financial crisis. Therefore all have access despite money or class.
I see this system as greatly beneficial for all citizens.I believe this is truly a blessing.
just my take – thanks again!