Insurance - is it good stewardship or lack of trust in God?

Right & Wrong
_roblaine
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:44 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Post by _roblaine » Sat Sep 23, 2006 11:33 am

I was waiting for the Good Samaritan passage and you replied as I expected. The question is not for the Samaritan but for the innkeeper. Should he be expected to give the injured man a room plus care for him without reasonable expectation of payment? The Samaritan apparently believed that the innkeeper was due payment for his expenses and time in caring for the injured man. Not to say that the innkeeper may not have offered to provide the care for no charge but I don't believe he was obligated to do so.

I don't consider and innkeeper and a hospital to be th same. Hostiptals are here to give care to the sick and injured. an innkeeper or hotel was there for rest. I believe hospitals have a duty to treat without prejudice to all who are in need. If someone has acted in a selfish manner and refuses to pay when they are capable of doing so than I cosider that to be between them and God.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
God Bless

User avatar
_Steve
Posts: 1564
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 12:07 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA

Post by _Steve » Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:26 pm

livingink,

As for the following case:

"the injured Christian in my example may not wake up. He's in a coma. With no next of kin. He doesn't own a house or car. No savings accounts. Or significant assets that can be sold. And he doesn't have a pastor. He listens to some guy on the radio for his teaching so nobody knows exactly what he would want done. What else do I need to limit to give you no wiggle room?

...there are several considerations that affect my thinking as a Christian about such a scenario.

1) Is it or is it not safe to act upon conscience, and leave the consequences in God's hands? What else is this but commiting oneself to God, "as unto a faithful Creator"? Is this policy, which is advocated in scripture (1 Pet.4:19) and was the only option for Christians through the centuries, still okay for Christians to practice?

2) If God does not want for one of His children to require hospitalization and expensive medical proceedures, is He able to prevent such mishaps?

3) If He allows such mishaps, is He able to fix them Himself, without medical intervention, if He wishes?

4) If He chooses not to fix it Himself, and prefers for His child to be hospitalized, is He not able to provide enough to pay the expenses incurred?

5) If He chooses none of the above and He wants His child to die, is this something His child should accept without resistance?

Some of us answer "Yes" to all these questions. This seems to be the answer that the scriptures inform us to give. Only if the answer to one or more of these questions is "No" could there be any reason for a child of God to fear the scenario you presented. Since the chances of this scenario materializing are probably less than one in a hundred or more, must we make major stewardship decisions based upon its eventuality?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve

User avatar
_Homer
Posts: 639
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Brownsville

Post by _Homer » Sun Sep 24, 2006 10:14 pm

Throughout these posts you seem to be linking no insurance with not wanting to pay for medical expenses. Why is this?
It seems to me that the person who does not want to have insurance and wants to pay for all his medical expenses, unless very wealthy, has desires that are incompatable. Anyone, at any time, may incur an enormous medical expense.

Although it is good to say "I will trust God and seek care as a last resort", this may cause the situation to be far worse than it might otherwise be in case of a stroke. Any delay in seeking care when there are symptoms of a stroke may leave a person dead, or alive with enormous long term costs. God's will may be for immediate help to be sought.

Some of the concern with insurance seems to be that the insurance company might pay for treatment(s) that might be immoral. Let's consider a hypothetical case. John and June Christian decide they should insure themselves and purchase private medical insurance at $400 per month each from Ajax Insurance. During their first month of being insured, their insurance company pays for what is termed a "medically necessary" abortion. An analysis of the cost of the abortion would reveal that the proportion of the cost paid for by each person insured by Ajax is $.25. Are John and June Christian guilty of sin because they each contributed, indirectly, 25 cents toward the cost of the abortion? Or is their sin a de minimus ("the law does not concern itself with trifles") infraction?

Let us say John and June are indeed guilty of sin in the matter. But wait, during the month the abortion was performed, John Christian had some medical tests performed along with his annual physical which cost the insurance company more than his $400 premium. He actually contributed nothing to the payment for the abortion so he did not sin but his wife did!

It might be argued that a person who purchases private insurance would be in a different category than a person who receives insurance from his employer. I think this is false reasoning. Employee insurance is a form of wages, and a person does not have to work for an employer who provides insurance. In my position before I retired, we estimated labor costs of projects by including the hourly wage, employee insurance, retirement benefits, social security, vacation pay, etc. all as part of the wage. Employee insurance isn't a gift from the employer, but an earned benefit.

I seek medical care whenever I think it wise to do so, and although I go to physicians I trust, I trust in God for my health. Regardless of what physicians may do, my health is ultimately in God's hands.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
A Berean

_livingink
Posts: 153
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2005 7:54 pm

Insurance

Post by _livingink » Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:43 pm

I appreciate the comments made by all in this discussion. First, re: Derek's question about insurance, I would say that a Christian needn't have it if he has accepted the consequences of not having it in case of a serious illness or injury. The Samaritans arrangement that you use is a very adequate way of seeing that the bill is paid if you are going to seek treatment. I believe the Christian is instructed to provide for the care of himself and family. Of course, God provides the means. While one of the statements was that refusal to pay would be between a Christian and God, I would suggest that it could easily involve a collection agency, the billing office, attorneys, etc. if the bill approaches the type of costs that Homer mentioned.

Steve, the answer to your 5 questions is "yes". It seems that the respondents here cloud the issue by requiring the hospital to treat based upon government edict. It would appear that there is some kind of reasoning going on here that says we are a Christian nation, the people are the government, so therefore Christians must understand that it is God's will that all people are taxed to support hospitals. Apparently there IS a tithe and the temple is the hospital. Why are an inn and a hospital any different? Both are businesses. Both have costs, employees to pay, equipment to buy, etc. at least in the modern day. I realize inns were not necessarily the same in NT times. We don't force the butcher, the baker, or the candlestick maker to sell us goods by government edict. Why is there some idea that medical care is any different?

I can only assume that some Christians are not convinced that the answer to question #5 is "yes". By forcing the hospital to treat, it sounds as if we have elevated the physical existence to a paramount position. If we believe that in some sense we are absent from the body and present with the Lord at death and if we believe that we will someday be resurrected and given an incorruptible body, then why the insistence on keeping this physical body alive at all costs? Is that the point you were making about Paul's statement?

As a practical question, if Allyn and Derek are walking along at one of Allyn's construction jobs and Allyn has made his arrangement with God known to Derek, what should Derek do in case Allyn suddenly trips and strikes his head on concrete, is unconscious and obviously injured severely? For the purpose of this question, no government edict for hospital treatment exists. Payment is expected within one month of treatment. I understand the concern about making stewardship decisions on the 1 in 100 situation but the potential cost in this 1 situation is obviously going to be more than Derek personally has available at this time. What should he do? I am not being contentious here. This type of question is very relevant for me.

Thanks,

livingink
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Derek
Posts: 291
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:27 am
Location: Marietta GA

Post by _Derek » Sun Oct 08, 2006 12:36 am

As a practical question, if Allyn and Derek are walking along at one of Allyn's construction jobs and Allyn has made his arrangement with God known to Derek, what should Derek do in case Allyn suddenly trips and strikes his head on concrete, is unconscious and obviously injured severely? For the purpose of this question, no government edict for hospital treatment exists. Payment is expected within one month of treatment. I understand the concern about making stewardship decisions on the 1 in 100 situation but the potential cost in this 1 situation is obviously going to be more than Derek personally has available at this time. What should he do? I am not being contentious here. This type of question is very relevant for me.
Hey bro, welcome back.

I am really not sure how "practical" this question is. But anyway, I think I should take Allyn to the hospital, tell them I don't have the money, but will try to get it together, and trust God. Should God not provide for whatever reason, and they deny him treatment, well, he'll go to heaven and be with Jesus and I don't think he would hold it against me.

I am not sure what you are talking about when you say "Allyn's arrangement with God", but I am assuming you just mean the fact that he trusts Him with whatever the outcome would be.

God bless!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Derek

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7

_livingink
Posts: 153
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2005 7:54 pm

Post by _livingink » Sun Oct 08, 2006 1:09 am

Hi Derek,

Yes, that's what I understood he and Steve to be saying in the earlier posts and I'm just trying to make sure that I understand their position. I am a health care provider and I see the possibility that I could violate their dependence on God and his provision of healing. From their posts throughout the past several months I don't think that physical death is worrisome to either of them but maybe I should let them say that! J. Vernon McGee once wrote words to the effect that death didn't worry him but he wasn't going to go out of his way to speed it along.

kind regards,

livingink
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_dexter
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:29 pm

Post by _dexter » Sun Oct 08, 2006 1:42 am

My mother sells a life insurance and that's how she supported us.

I think having a life insurance is not the issue but rather how will it affect our relationship with GOD. If having a life insurance will not interfere with our faith in him then I don't see any problem.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_livingink
Posts: 153
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2005 7:54 pm

Post by _livingink » Mon Oct 09, 2006 10:58 pm

If anyone is still interested in this topic, I remembered the current use of living wills and advance directives. Under such agreements, a person decides in advance of illness or injury whether lifesaving devices such as ventilators should be used to keep them alive. For a Christian, that would seem to require input from God. Does that factor into the discussion in any way?

livingink
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Homer
Posts: 639
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Brownsville

Post by _Homer » Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:29 am

Livingink,

If I was afflicted with alzheimers, I would not want any treatment administered that would prolong life once I reached the stage where I was no longer able to know my own family. I would only want medication that relieved pain.

Potential recovery if in a comatose state is a more difficult matter, leaving the basis for decision to the advice of medical experts. But what of the case where a person could die but clearly has a chance of recovery to a meaningful life? In that case, would not the refusal of all available treatment be de facto suicide?

It seems to me the ability to pay should not be a factor. We should have insurance when we can so as not to burden others ("Let each one bear his own burden"), pay out of our own funds, or accept the charity of others, or payment by the government, whenever necessary ("Bear one another's burdens").

If we say "I can not pay, I will die and go to be with the Lord", would it not be logical to say to all others who can not pay "die and go to be with the Lord"?

I know Paul said it would be gain to die and be with the Lord but he also was lowered over a wall to save his life and appealed to Rome also.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
A Berean

_livingink
Posts: 153
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2005 7:54 pm

Insurance

Post by _livingink » Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:58 am

Hello Homer,

Those are very good points to consider as I try to sort this out. It seems that discerning the will of God means different things to different people.

Would it be suicide? I'd have to ask if a Christian can make a pre-occurrence decision not to treat such as an advance directive based upon prayer or if a Christian has to wait until something actually happens to know what God wants?

Is there a scripture that would show that Christ taught that taxing even unbelievers to pay for the care of Christians was satisfactory behavior? I believe that you and I probably see health insurance more as buying a product from someone regardless of religion than as becoming yoked with unbelievers but I respect Steve's concern with that. I see it more as John and James selling their fish to people throughout the empire some of whom were no doubt unbelievers. But that aside, if we can say that Christ would have taught that taxation was ok then we could call it a Christian principle as some here seem to be advocating.

Sorry, I have to go. Hope this isn't too disjointed.

livingink
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

Post Reply

Return to “Ethics”