The headline in this morning’s Oregonian is “Health care: Who gets left out?”  Then the writers pose the question: since Oregon can’t cover the needs of both the young and the elderly and the disabled, who should be left out?

This question is an example of faulty logic–a false dilemma, if you will.  After all, Oregon is paying for a wide variety of things, including keeping a record number of prisoners in jail, even those who have committed non-violent and/or victimless crimes.  And then there is the assumption that we have only so much revenue and can raise no more.  If we need more money for basic services such as health care for disabled persons, we always have the option of raising taxes. 

I realize that raising taxes is not a popular move in Oregon or any other place on the planet–especially during an economic downturn.  But let me ask you this: when some of us have more than we need–in fact quite a bit more than we need–why shouldn’t we share more of what we have with those who are in dire circumstances?  Some people would cry out, “This is socialism!”  Actually, no, it could be called “following Jesus.” 

I’m not for a socialist state with an economy planned from the top down–that has proved to be a failed concept everywhere it has been tried.  But I am for re-distributing the wealth of this land in a more equitable manner, so that some people don’t have to suffer and even die while others have three homes and four automobiles. 

Right now, the disparity in wealth is this country is greater than it has been since the late1920′s–just before the Great Depression.  An equitable tax structure would help.  And bringing unions back to power.  And raising the minimum wage to a living wage for all workers.  And building an economy based on production and service instead of finance. Of late, 80% of the economy of the United States has been based on finance–that is, shuffling papers and counting.  Let’s get real.

Let’s pose a situation.  Imagine, just imagine, that you sat down to a sumptuous meal one evening and there suddenly appeared right next to you a child eating only a bowl of thin soup.  Your heart would be moved, and you would immediately offer to share your food with this child.  The problem is, we who have more than enough do not sit down with poor people–they are abstractions to us, they are numbers.  We sit down with our own kind.  And so we are more likely to say, “No more taxes!”  We are more likely to believe that our money is for ourselves, to use as we please–after all, didn’t I work for it?

Who gets left out?  It’s always the same: poor people, old people, disabled people, mentally ill people, people with chronic illnesses.  The most vulnerable among us.  Why is this the case?  Where is the logic in that?  Why shouldn’t we who have more than we need share what we have with those whose needs are the greatest?  You tell me. 

You know, we’ve just done Christmas, haven’t we?  What was that story about, anyway?