As the U.S. House of Representatives approached a vote last week on H.R. 3962, legislation that would vastly expand the federal government’s role over the U.S. health-care system, the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society (GBCS) asked Methodists to “contact your member of the U.S. House of Representatives this week and urge them to support H.R. 3962.”
A GBCS ad urging support of
the House health bill
In pushing for passage of the House bill, and for approval of health-care legislation in U.S. Senate, GBCS has made a point of quoting a portion of ¶162V of the United Methodist Book of Discipline: “Health care is a basic human right.”
UM pastor and blogger Donald Sensing has argued (here and here) that the concept of health care as a “human right” is difficult to sustain logically, unless one alters the traditional definition of what is meant by “rights.” Even so, the assertion of a “right” to health care is part of the Social Principles of the United Methodist Discipline.
How did it come to be there?
Language asserting that health care is a right was first added to the Book of Discipline by the 1996 General Conference. That language was reaffirmed (and expanded) by the General Conference in 2008. However, in neither instance (1996 nor 2008) was the matter was actually discussed on the floor of the conference. Details below.
∞
1996: Two years after the Clinton Administration’s health-care plan failed to achieve congressional passage, the General Board of Church and Society submitted a petition asserting a “right to health care” to the 1996 General Conference. (In other words, GBCS authored the assertion it now quotes in support of its lobbying on the health care issue.)
The GBCS petition was approved by the 1996 Church and Society legislative committee and sent to the full General Conference with a recommendation for “concurrence.”
The committee-approved petition did not come to the floor as a separate item, however. Instead, it was bundled with several unrelated items as part of a “consent calendar,” a parliamentary vehicle aimed at speeding the business of a legislative assembly by packaging several “noncontroversial” items as one and having them adopted in a single vote.
The GBCS language describing health care as a right was included as part of Consent Calendar A02 (PDF), which was moved on the floor of the conference and approved with no discussion (or verbal description of the 109 items included) on April 22, 1996.
At that point, or at least when the language was subsequently included in the 1996 Book of Discipline, the United Methodist Church officially endorsed the concept of a right to health care.
∞
2008: Last year, the General Conference reaffirmed the “right” to health care, again without any floor debate. In a manner somewhat similar to 1996, the legislative petition was bundled with other items, although this time the bundled items — three in all — related to the same topic: health care.
In addition to the petition (submitted by GBCS) reasserting a right to health care (and further expanding the language in that section of the Discipline), the bundled items included a petition from GBCS General Secretary Jim Winkler strongly advocating a “single-payer” (i.e. government-managed) system for health care in the U.S.
A third item — a petition from the Norway Annual Conference’s Board of Discipleship/Church and Society — simply declared: “We believe it is a governmental responsibility to provide all citizens with health care.” (Norway has a compulsory, tax-funded health-care system.)
All three of these health-care-related petitions came to the floor of the General Conference after 9 p.m. on the conference’s final night — May 2, 2008. Rushing to conclude legislative business (approximately 50 items were on the legislative calendar for that evening), the conference dealt with all three health-care items as one, following the recommendation of presenter Frederick Brewington, who represented the Church and Society 2 legislative committee.
The General Conference quickly approved the items — with no debate — by a vote of 690-114.
∞
As is common when legislative assemblies are up against a deadline, floor debate was generally in short supply that evening.
| Delegates had apparently taken to heart the advice of Bishop William Hutchinson (Louisiana Conference), who was serving as chair on that final night. Near the beginning of the session, he had reminded delegates of the “significant amount of work” yet to be done and urged them to “keep moving in the voting process.” |
|
About a half-hour before the health items were presented, with 40 calendar items still remaining and the deadline for adjournment drawing nearer, a delegate from the Oklahoma Conference moved to “suspend the rules and limit debate” so that items could dealt with even more quickly. With delegates keenly aware of the press of time, the motion to limit debate drew only minimal objection and was passed handily.
∞
The presentation of the three health-care items began at approximately 9:10 p.m. and the vote occurred less than four minutes later. The proceedings are transcribed below.
| (The the right-to-health-care legislation is Calendar No. 738; the “single-payer” petition is No. 737; the petition from the Norway Conference is No. 1198.) |
|
Bishop William Hutchinson: We’re ready to move now to Church and Society 2. Frederick Brewington.
Frederick K. Brewington (New York Conference, chair, Church and Society 2 legislative committee): Thank you, Bishop.
Bishop, the next three petitions we’re going to bring as a group in an attempt to bundle them, if they are so allowed to be bundled by the body.
Bishop Hutchinson: All right.
Frederick Brewington, chair,
Church and Society 2 Cmte.Brewington: They deal with the issue of quality health care. They are found at the following DCA [Daily Christian Advocate] pages — 2175 — excuse me, 2174 and 2268.They are Calendar Numbers 738, 737, and 1900 — excuse me, 1198 — found in the Advanced DCA 347, 348, and 379. The petition numbers are: Petition Number 80642, 80568, and 81011.
These three petitions, Bishop, deal with strong statements dealing with the need for quality health care and the right of all people to that as a basic human right. It sets out — they all set out, as strong statements rooted in a positive way that discuss the responsibility of government to partner and be involved and making sure that health care is made available to all.
Two deal with paragraph 162T of the Book of Discipline [now ¶162V] — and the other deals with resolutions 108 and 113 of the Book of Resolutions and seek to combine the intent of those resolutions into a single resolution.
If further information is needed, Bishop, I would provide that — but the committee has recommended that each of these petitions be adopted.
Bishop William Hutchinson
Bishop Hutchinson: All right. The request is that these be bundled into one vote and you would be adopting all three at the same time.
Do I see any, uh, heartburn with us doing it that way? I don’t think I do.
Yes, do you have a question? Back here in section C, to microphone 8.
Timothy J. Riss (New York Conference): I heard that we’re adopting all three of these. Is one of them on a consent calendar — I’m sorry — is one of them something that you wanted to reject?
Bishop Hutchinson: That is not the recommendation of the committee.
Brewington: They are “to adopt” as to all three.
Riss: I’m sorry.
Bishop Hutchinson: I think we’re ready to vote on this. If you will vote for the adoption of all three petitions you will do so by pressing “1.” If you will reject all three petitions you will do so by pressing “2.” Vote when the timer appears. [A pause as the delegates vote.] All right, we have adopted all three petitions.
∞
As noted above, the 1996 petition asserting a right to heath care was submitted by the General Board of Church and Society, as were two of the three health-care petitions passed in 2008.
Once such items are approved by the General Conference, GBCS is empowered to promote them as official church policy, even to the point of lobbying for specific congressional legislation that would seem to advance those policy aims.
Although competing solutions to particular societal problems may exist, GBCS often lobbies for a specific approach, hence its strong support of H.R. 3962. (For an example of an alternate approach to dealing with the issues of health-care availability and affordability, see here.)
∞
The text of the Book of Discipline‘s ¶162V (“Right to Health Care”), as approved by the 2008 General Conference late on Friday evening, May 2, is here.
The resolution, “Heath Care for All,” submitted by GBCS General Secretary Jim Winkler and approved as part of that same Friday night vote, is now included in the UM Book of Resolutions. Read it here.
∞
(Thanks to MethodistThinker reader, Mark Smith, O.D.,
for suggesting a post on this topic.)
Despite their pretense of humility, the leaders of the GBCS frequently behave arrogantly. Like most modern leftists, they think they “know better” and are therefore justified in doing just about anything to forward their agenda, even if it means bending the rules. Their actions with respect to getting the health-care language in the Discipline reminds me of the beauty contestant who bribes the judge and then acts surprised when she “wins.”
And what is the GBCS agenda regarding the health-care debate? It’s simple: to invoke the “health-care-is-a-right” argument to push for greater and greater government control over our lives. Their faith in government appears to be as great as their faith in God.
But back to the basic question: Is health care a right?
Here are some interesting observations on the subject of rights by Ayn Rand:
“Right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action — which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)
The concept of a “right” pertains only to action — specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.
Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive — of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.
The right to life is the source of all rights — and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.
Hmmm…ramrodded through — not unlike what Congress is doing. It’s encouraging to know the history, but sad to think that major decisions are made this way.
At the time it may not have seemed like a major decision, and accepted without debate — but in light of where we are today, the value of that vote has changed immensely in importance.
This could be a reason that many people are troubled with belonging to a denomination. How many other matters of genuine political debate between well-meaning individuals on both sides are included in the Book of Discipline that most United Methodists — like me — don’t know that we are all said to believe? And how many of these matters were passed without discussion or debate by our delegates to General Conference.
This is rather scary and causing me to ReThink Church in an entirely different way.
Please spare us the Ayn Rand. Objectivism is in direct contradiction to Scripture, IMHO.
Health care is a fundamental human right. To our national shame, far more secular nations do a better job of following Jesus’ admonition to care for the least of these. Our infant mortality rate of 44th in the world is a national sin.
Lack of public health care is like abortion; in both cases children die because it is more convenient. Abortion may be more moral, in that it can sometimes save the life of the mother.
I am proud that the UMC stands up for what is right in the face of a society where Christianity is too often found championing a system in which a person’s worth is solely determined by their wealth. (See: health care, justice, education, political representation, etc.)
(Editor’s note: The infant mortality rate in the U.S. is closely correlated with the high percentage of premature births here; preterm births occur primarily among teenage mothers, older women, and smokers. For details, see “Preemies Raise U.S. Infant Mortality Rate” from WebMD Health News.)
No one is suggesting there are not problems in our current health-care system. But completely overhauling the system is the equivalent of replacing an entire car because of a couple of flat tires. And if the entire car plunges into a sea of debt then everyone drowns.
One of the reasons our infant mortality rate is measured higher than other countries, in addition to those already listed, is this: we actually measure these things better than other nations. The statistics gathered for many other countries are simply less accurate than ours (ergo, they can be more easily manipulated to make them look good). Admittedly, that’s not the whole story. We still have work to do in this area.
But the health-care systems so often held up as “helping the least of these” better than we do, upon further analysis, actually do not. The Medicaid system does a pretty good job of taking care of folks in the U.S., especially when compared to some foreign systems. Look at the waiting times in Britain and Canada. Hospitals in Japan are going broke. The French system is going broke. Doctors in Germany are going on strike. If a system is not sustainable then it is not a good system. We need to improve our system, but we compare more favorably than many commentators suggest.
Regarding the Ayn Rand quote, I am not asking anyone to become a devotee of Rand or objectivism. What I am asking is that the rational arguments about “rights” be analyzed and grappled with. I have listened with an open-mind to many who say health-care is a basic right. I have yet to be convinced.
We do have government health care for the poor. Unwed mothers can sign up for Medicaid. There’s SCHP in many states for kids whose parents are among the working poor.
H.R. 676, a fund-raising mechanism for health-care reform that the UMC also supports, advocates a single payer system — period! I believe there are other ways to make health care more competitive and bring prices down, besides dismantling the entire health care system that we have today — e.g., deregulate health insurance to increase competition, expand Medicaid for a higher % of the poverty level, allow the unemployed to get Medicaid while they draw benefits, etc.
I do not understand why the United Methodist Church supports single payer, especially with hundreds (thousands?) of UM Elders receiving great benefits. If the UMC is aware of this, and the church as a whole is willing to sacrifice its outstanding benefits for the sake of the poor, then I really applaud everyone for that! Not even Congress is willing to make that sacrifice!
jjoe — Although you object to Rand’s Objectivism, you provide no support for your claim that “Health care is a fundamental human right.”
While I agree that Rand’s ideas conflict with Scripture (no surprise there), where in Scripture do you find the fundamental human right to health care?
When did the UMC come to define health care as a right? Hopefully when we heard Jesus tell the parable of the Good Samaritan.
Funny how Jesus challenges the comfortable political beliefs of so many modern day Pharisees.
(Editor’s note: The “Good Samaritan” parable is found in Luke 10:25-37.)
The problem with health care being a “right” is that it requires government to take from one group to give to another.
To secure this right, government must pay for the medical services anyone needs. To do that, it uses its taxing powers, or — as we are seeing in the current House bill — government forces everyone to buy the insurance policies it chooses for us (and punishes those who resist with up to five years in federal prison). Because doctors and pharmaceutical companies are needed to serve this right, the government must reach out to control them, as well.
All other rights (as we understand them from the U.S. Constitution) are rights of autonomy, i.e. they are rights that protect people against government control of their lives.
You will note that the Good Samaritan paid for the care with his own money, presumably earned by the sweat of his own brow. He did not try to coerce others into paying.
A great book on the subject of helping the poor is The Tragedy of American Compassion by Marvin Olasky. Olasky recounts the history of compassion in America, including how many modern citizens have absolved themselves from personal responsibility for taking care of their neighbor by co-opting “the government” to do it.
The book is an interesting read in light of recent statistics that show people who believe in bigger government tend to be less charitable in their personal giving.
(Editor’s note: To learn more about the demographic and social characteristics of generous givers, see Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism by Arthur C. Brooks (Basic Books, 2007).)
An article, written by Bishop Hassinger (Troy and Wyoming Conference) was recently sent out via the iVoice newsletter and quoted the Book of Discipline regarding this topic. She was advocating that people contact our local representatives to support the health-care bill.
I was disappointed, angry, and saddened that this self-serving article written by the Bishop was sent out. I wrote to her and expressed my feelings, somewhat adamantly.
After reading this blog post, I am even more disheartened by the UM leadership. Regardless of where anyone stands on this issue, the bottom line is that there is no truth, no honesty, no integrity as to how this language was implemented into the the Book of Discipline. Then, to have the Bishop quote it as some great policy that includes quoting Scripture makes it even more fraudulent.
It is sad — and we wonder why the Methodist Church is 80 percent decaying or dystrophic (Dan R. Dick, Vital Signs).
(Editor’s note: You can read the above-mentioned article by Bishop Susan Hassinger here.)
How do we as Methodists change the membership of the GBCS so that it reflects the beliefs of the majority of the church and does not consist of members pushing their own agenda without regard to the good of the church?
I was shocked and appalled to hear Nancy Pelosi thanking the United Methodist Church — my church — for helping to pass this horrible health care bill on Sunday. All the good intentions and compassion in the world will not make this bill a good one for our country. Much damage has been done and more will come about because of this.
I do NOT join my church in supporting this. UM leadership is not speaking for me.
Do I have to rethink my being a United Methodist, or will my church rethink its stance on this and other “social justice” issues that are at base leftist politics (that end up hurting people)?
This week I feel betrayed by both my government and my church.
I appreciate Mark’s effort (comment from Nov 11 ’09) to explain the human right(s) that our forefathers, thank God, recognized and placed at the fore of our Republic. As usual, leftists and others think they can make up their own definitions.
The Good Samaritan helped his neighbor. Point: people help people. The government’s job is to protect us, not run our companies, bankrupt us or spread the wealth (or change our Constitution through the courts or administration). Thanks again to Washington, Jefferson, et al.
Of course, the church should advocate moral values from the Bible. And, it needs to properly sift and interpret for us.
For other thoughts on rights, see the 3rd Continental Congress’ Articles of Freedom.
I have attended the last four General Conferences. I have watched as the halls are filled with the staff of the boards and agencies, paid by the church to be there. The process is incredibly manipulated.
Committee membership is stacked to produce a desired outcome. Legislation gets bogged down in minutia of amendments and amendments to amendments about half way through. Then at the end there is a huge backlog of resolutions that must be dealt with. These are all thrown into an omnibus bill that is passed without ever seeing the light of day based on the vote of a small group of committee members.
That is how our social principles has come to be a play book for the left. They use these questionable “votes” as a mandate from General Conference.
How can the abuse of the political process be stopped? Can it be?
Although I serve in ministry through the UMC, I don’t assume the denomination to be Christian. Therefore, I fully expect its leadership to behave as the oligarchs they are.
In Christ, I strive to serve the Father as Jesus served within the Jewish culture and religious system that was ruled by the oligarchs of his time. Jesus preached repentance to them; he did not take up the sword to make them change.
So like the ancient temple, the power structure of the UMC will eventually collapse — its demise being the weight of its own arrogance and self interest.