I just happened to turn on “The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch” on CNN the other night, and the one and only Ted Nugent was on the show to talk about various topics from gun control to his desire to run for governor of Michigan in 2010. Now most people outside of the Michigan Militia consider him a right wing wacko whose ideas are impractical and at times downright dangerous. I clearly disagree with his views on gun control and so I was expecting to be angered by his comments, but he brought up a concept that I found very intriguing.
Basically he stated that smokers should not receive government-funded health care. The logic follows that if people are going to intentionally and continuously damage their health, why should the taxpayers fund their self-imposed destruction? After all, we all know what cigarettes do to the body. There is nothing redeeming from smoking. But the effects of smoking—cancer, emphysema, asthma, etc.—cost millions and billions of dollars to treat even though most are incurable. And if such people knowingly engage in actions that contribute to the overwhelming cost of medical care, they are taking advantage of the system and wasting valuable money—my money.
As I consider such a proposal I think, “That makes perfect sense. Stop the waste. Increase the health of America. Everyone’s happy.” But here’s a problem with the whole setup. If we agree that people who intentionally hurt their bodies should not receive government funded health care, where does this logic end? Should gluttons get heart surgery after they have clogged their arteries? Should drug abusers get detoxed when their bodies are addicted? Should those who go to tanning booths get chemotherapy when they get skin cancer?
I want to say sure they can have it—if they pay for it. Why should I pay for their terrible decisions? Why should those of us who live wisely underwrite an effort to make their lives better when they don’t deserve it? Of course, such questions fly in the face of grace, but I can’t help it. I suppose these questions bring up the concept of justice vs. grace, holiness vs. love, and consequences vs. forgiveness. Can we make such decisions? Should we draw such lines? Or should we just live lives of love and let God deal the rest?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
good thoughts. another wrench in the spokes is, How do you inforce such a policy? talk about an invasion of privacy!
i'm not sure if the government has to be run by grace, since this isn't the Kingdom of God. But i suppose we should desire to love and help people despite their decisions (since that is what God has already done for us).
Post a Comment