Asking the clergy: Does the new health care law go far enough morally?

The Rev. Dwight Lee Wolter, Congregational Church of Patchogue:

Absolutely not. I think politicians are afraid to answer moral questions because whatever way you fall on a moral question, you're going to alienate some voters. And health is inevitably a moral issue because it involves love, fear, sacrifice and justice.

Reform should begin with the heart, not the wallet. We should be more concerned with generating health care prophets, rather than health care profits. I say this knowing that health care reform is a very complicated issue.

In the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), we are instructed not to make money off sick people. We are not to take advantage of people when they are down. Thus, I feel biblical support for my personal feelings that it is wrong to turn sickness into a profit center.

We all know that people will spend any amount of private or public funds to save their loved ones. Hospitals and "health" care providers make their living off sickness, not health.

Hospitals and physicians should be rewarded for keeping people healthy, more so than mending them when they are sick.

Amy Frushour Kelly,coordinator, Center For Inquiry - Long Island:

It's difficult to give a "secular humanist" answer to this question because the health care law involves many variables that have less to do with a person's religious views and much more to do with economic or political views.

We secular humanists base our morality on goodwill and consideration of our fellow human beings, so, of course, we want people to be able to live healthy lives. In this, we are no different from most religious believers. The difficulty we all share is in determining the best system to ensure the best health care.

From my personal perspective, I believe every human being has a fundamental right to have unrestricted, free access to health care, including birth control, family planning, mental health care and (when appropriate) the right to die on one's own terms in the face of terminal illness. To deny or restrict any of these rights is unethical. So, while the law is a step in a commendable direction, my own feeling is that it doesn't go far enough.

The Rev. Laurie Cline, Saint John Lutheran Church, Bellmore:

Although the health care reform law addresses some deficiencies of our health care system, it does not meet the moral standards that are mandated in Scripture. In the first covenant God made with the people of Israel, the expectation was that the needs of the weak and marginalized would be provided for by those blessed with greater resources. On Maundy Thursday, Christians were reminded of Jesus' command to love others as God loves each one of us.

The U.S. Census states that in 2009, 47 million people were without health care coverage. According to projections, 15 million will not have coverage under the new law. If we take our God-given mandate to care for others seriously, that is still unacceptable.

It is imperative that we move health care from the partisan political debate it has become to a mutually moral mandate to meet the needs of our people.

Donald Smith, Religious Society of Friends, Orient Meeting, Orient:

A country has an obligation to ensure the health of its citizens. So, yes, the health care law serves its moral purpose because it covers a lot of people. Health care certainly is a moral obligation, no question about it.

We're talking about a broader issue than someone who smokes and gets sick, or someone who is overweight and ill because of it. I don't think how you became ill makes a difference to whether you should be covered. And, we should look more to preventing illness in this country.

While the process of passing the bill wasn't particularly moral, the result was OK. If we had tried to do more, cover more people, it would have held up the bill. That would not have been a benefit to the public.