# Is it Okay for a Christian to Have Medicaid?



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Feb 11, 2016)

For those who are respectable, responsible Christians, who work hard and desire to raise their families in a Biblical way (entailing the mother staying at home), would it be wrong for the spouse and children to receive help from the government, knowing if they were under the father's insurance, they would not be able to afford it? This seems to be a tough situation for fathers who make a lower income, knowing that they wish to provide for their families in every way, but with the cost of medical insurance being so high when you add a spouse and children, there is no way they could afford it. 

Thanks!


----------



## Parakaleo (Feb 11, 2016)

It would have to depend on the circumstances and the heart of those receiving benefits.

If government assistance is the only thing between the family and destitution and all other avenues have been explored, I would say that the assistance can be seen as needful, temporary provision.

If a family receives assistance just to save money and enjoy a higher standard of living, this kind of entitled attitude has no place in the life of a believer. Providing for a family should be viewed as a privilege that no man would want to give over to others unless he absolutely must. That's why it's unsettling to think of all the schoolchildren in this country that are fed government-provided breakfasts, lunches, and even dinners from their schools each day. What kind of message does that send to families? Who is the real provider?


----------



## Edward (Feb 11, 2016)

Not being as familiar with Medicaid as perhaps I should be, particularly post- Obamacare, would it be legitimately available under the circumstances - is it available if all the questions are answered truthfully? If so, I see no ethical problem in obtaining it. If available Medicaid is not obtained, where would the cost burden for an injury or illness fall? Not on the family, if they don't have the resources to pay. It would fall upon the taxpayers, or the providers, or on one's fellow church members. 

And remember to calculate in the Obamacare penalties for non-coverage.


----------



## earl40 (Feb 11, 2016)

Here is a fact....if one thinks they are covered my Medicade and think they are adequately covered I got news for you. Don't plan on getting a lot of medical care you may think is necessary. What is interesting is that I work in a hospital and sometimes it is simply more dangerous to have great insurance or to be a lawyer because you will not believe how many unneeded surgeries and procedures are done because of huge reimbursement and fear of liability.


----------



## Edward (Feb 11, 2016)

Another alternative for the children might be ChIP or a similar program if available in that state (I think some states roll it up into Medicaid; some places it is a separate program.


----------



## arapahoepark (Feb 11, 2016)

Regrettably, I admit, I have medicaid. My university had some preemptive obamacare junk which forced me to take out loans to pay for their insurance which they made me have despite having my own insurance. Anyway after I graduated, Doing the whole Care for Colorado they would not let me get insurance or subsidized insurance (slightly better than medicaid), despite the fact I am still a dependent, which I mentioned. I can not get on my parents since their plan was grandfathered in so I would jepordize them. I did not make enough at the time. I believe the cut off (not sure it is for Colorado or every where) is 15,000 a year, after that then you could get subsidized insurance. So I was automatically enrolled and accepted.
Obviously, this is not what I would choose but, I don't have a say and apparently I'd be fined and breaking a law not to have it. I don't think its sinful especially when you are forced into the situation like I was.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Feb 11, 2016)

Yeah, it's just really crazy to think about. For example, there may be a godly family with the husband as a public school teacher, and the wife, a stay at home mom raising their two children. Teachers typically start at the low 30,000's here in Florida, so this is hardly anything, considering that the majority of his life will be devoted to his job. So for him alone, the insurance payment is fine, but if he were to add his wife and children, he would be in the $800 dollar range a month. There is no way they could survive with this payment. So it seems like the only alternative would be something like medicaid. In this case, I know it's not desired, but I surely hope it isn't sinful.


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 11, 2016)

As a conservative, my orientation is to emphasize the value and virtues of independence. However, if the society provides the provision, establishes the financial criteria, and the believer answers the qualifying questions accurately and honestly, I cannot see a strong argument against it.

While four of my kids are gainfully employed and pretty self-sufficient, one is on staff in a church that does not pay particularly generously. His two kids were both born while they were on Medicaid. For the sake of my grandkids, I am VERY happy that decent medical care was available for them. 

My feeling is that if a man will work full time, live frugally, and still not be able to support his family, there is no shame in receiving any subsidies or public assistance that augments his earnings. The cost of living in some parts of the country make it VERY difficult to get unless you are blessed to have a very adequate source of employment.

Now that I'm semi-retired (I work 20 hrs./wk in a church for a little better than minimum wage), I'm reminded existentially how tough it is for some of our folks to get by on their income. Blessedly, my pension augments family income and we are but two of us, but it was enough of a step-down to realize some of the difficult decisions millions of people make every day.


----------



## smhbbag (Feb 12, 2016)

If a man doesn't work, he shall not eat. Heavily implied in that statement is the notion that if a man does work, he shall eat. "Eat" can be taken to mean more than just food, but expanded to mean at least general subsistence.

If a man is honestly and willingly working (or doing everything in his power to do so), then I have absolutely no qualms with him taking whatever government assistance is available. He is discharging his duties properly, and he is owed the natural and proper reward for that work, which at least involves getting by. I won't try to parse out whether the assistance is too much for him rightly to accept. There is pretty much nobody in danger of that, in my mind. There was a time when any man willing to work could (at least very humbly) provide shelter and food for his family without much or any assistance. Those times are gone, and I won't blame the victims, apart from quite obvious laziness. Even then, laziness is often a response to the fact that doing work doesn't actually bring the benefits it should (namely sufficient food and shelter). It's not an "entitlement mentality" to want something to which you are actually entitled.


----------



## AThornquist (Feb 12, 2016)

I am taking 19 credit hours in college and working 25 hours a week (basically any time I'm not at school), and my wife takes care of our baby and home. We have Medicaid, and I have no regrets. I have paid a lot of my hard-earned money to the government over the last several years while working full-time and don't mind getting some of it back to help us during this period of time. Some people abuse welfare, but I am thankful for the system as a whole: some people really need the help, whether it be long-term or short-term.


----------



## Parakaleo (Feb 12, 2016)

My first comments were under the assumption that the man worked a reasonable week's labor. I do feel that one who works, but cannot fully provide, should not be troubled by taking available assistance.

But what is meant by "provision" or "getting by"? For example, is it right for a working man to take assistance from the government while subscribing to a television service?


----------



## Dwimble (Feb 12, 2016)

In my mind this isn't much different than using any other government managed program or utility. The roads you drive on, the water you drink from your faucet, the money you get for being a foster-parent, the public park at which your children play, the schools that most children attend, and so on, are all public/government taxpayer-funded works put in place by the officials we elected. We may agree or disagree with the existence of some of them, but they all have that fact in common.

I may have the land, capability, and time to dig a water-well, but if I instead choose to take advantage of the government's willingness and ability to pipe clean water right up to my house (and only charge me a few dollars a month for it), is that wrong? Ultimately I think this sort of thing comes down to the heart of the recipient. If someone is on government assistance because they simply don't want to work, or does something like take in a bunch of foster children just so that they can get paid, then the problem is not the government program, but the heart of the person using it.


----------

