Article by Rev. Sandy Strauss

A few weeks ago, Gov. Ed Rendell made the claim that Jesus would back his health-care plan -- as would Moses and Mohammed. I don't believe that even as a member of the clergy I could claim to know how Jesus -- much less Moses or Mohammed -- would respond to the governor's proposal. But I think I can speak with some certainty about what Jesus would do for sick and vulnerable persons.

Jesus was a healer, and healing was one of the most important aspects of his ministry. The gospels are replete with stories of Jesus healing the sick, raising the dead, making the lame walk, restoring sight to the blind and hearing to the deaf. He cared deeply for the spiritual welfare of all. He empowered others "to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal" (Luke 9:2). He never refused to heal someone because they could not pay, and pre-existing conditions were his specialty. It seems to me that Jesus would provide for the health and well-being of all persons.

While the governor's "Prescription for Pennsylvania" has been touted as a universal health-care proposal, it is not. Its goals of reducing the number of uninsured Pennsylvanians and reducing costs are admirable, but there is in reality no guarantee of coverage for all Pennsylvanians.

In fact, I have some concern that one provision may have the unintended effect of increasing the number of uninsured if some businesses choose to pay a 3 percent payroll tax to the state in lieu of providing coverage -- one provision contained in House Bill 700, the legislation that embodies the governor's proposal.

As healing was a priority for Jesus, so is health care the top priority for the Pennsylvania Council of Churches. The council's position is that comprehensive health care must be available to all persons -- regardless of ability to pay. A comprehensive system should be: 1) universal; 2) continuous; 3) affordable to individuals and families; 4) affordable and sustainable for society; and 5) supportive of high-quality care that is effective, efficient, safe, timely, patient-centered and equitable.

A basic analysis indicates that the "Prescription for Pennsylvania" doesn't meet the first two criteria, and it's unclear how well it would meet the others.

There is a better option.

The council has chosen to endorse Senate Bill 300, the Family and Business Health Security Act, and its companion bill in the House, HB 1660. These bills appear to provide the best vehicle for addressing the characteristics we have identified as important for any health-care plan.

The Family and Business Health Security Act is a single-payer plan that would provide uniform, comprehensive coverage for all Pennsylvanians while maintaining the freedom to choose providers, with fair contributions from all businesses and individuals. There would be no deductibles or co-pays, and it would cover a comprehensive range of services, including preventive care, dental, vision and mental-health services.

Because it would be a single-payer system, there would be efficiencies that could never be achieved under the patchwork of insurers and plans that currently exist. Costs for providing services would be reduced because it would eliminate much of the overhead that exists for insurers (advertising, administration of multiple plans, etc.) and providers (claims processing personnel dealing with multiple plans, providers seeking preapprovals, etc.).

Because everyone would be covered, there would be greater incentive to seek preventive care or address medical problems before they reach a crisis point. Care provided in a doctor's office at an early stage when a problem is most manageable is less costly than care sought in an emergency room when an ailment has reached an advanced stage.

The House recently passed a resolution to create a health-care task force to examine the cost of health insurance and to assess the quality of health care for Pennsylvanians, considering all potential funding sources with an eye toward providing health-insurance coverage for all. I hope and pray that in the 120 days allotted, this group will look beyond the governor's proposal to consider the overwhelming merits of the Family and Business Health Security Act as the way to provide the most comprehensive and cost-effective coverage for all Pennsylvanians.

While I can't claim that Jesus would endorse this legislation, I suspect that he would be happy to know that we are working, as he did, to provide health and healing for everyone. I doubt that he would settle for anything less.

The Rev. Sandra L. Strauss is the director of public advocacy for the Pennsylvania Council of Churches (s.strauss@pachurches.org).