In Response to Representative Mo Brooks

If the name ‘Mo Brooks’ doesn’t make you cringe, then start by watching this interview here: Let’s review that appallingly unempathetic barrage, shall we? He states that “those people who lead good lives, they’re healthy” and further claims that those without pre-existing conditions have “done the things to keep their bodies healthy.” While I am glad Representative Brooks has never encountered significant health issues and as such has been able to remain so woefully ignorant of how human health actually works, this level of idiocy should have no place among the people shaping healthcare policy. People shouldn’t have to personally get cancer to realize that people just get sick sometimes, but alas, it seems this is the state of things right now. If it isn’t obvious, there are a couple problems with Representative Brooks’ statements.

First, one’s health has nothing to do with whether one has “led a good life” or not. Health and sickness are not handed out according to some moral point-keeping system. Sometimes illnesses just happen. Medically and scientifically this is simply a fact. My cancer has no known risk factors. It’s just a random glitch in DNA transcription. In fact, the only thing I’ve done in my life to be at a greater-than-normal risk for cancer is receive cancer treatment. That doesn’t mean that, should I develop a secondary cancer down the road, I didn’t “lead a good life” or “do the things to keep my body healthy.” Maybe you think I AM morally responsible for my cancer though. I was diagnosed at 23 after all, and certainly didn’t live a morally perfect life those 23 years. So what about the babies and children I know at my hospital in New York City? These kids got cancer at young ages. Some were even born with cancer. Can you really blame them? Their parents?

I’ve seen too many people who do. People who ignore what we know medically point to Bible verses taken out-of-context to justify such appalling notions. But they ignore the teachings of Jesus, who specifically countered such ideas multiple times. I’ve written before about Matthew 5:45, in which Jesus explains that sun and rain come to the just and unjust alike. In short, it means that the systems of this world do not consider the morals of the people they affect; they simply operate as God created them to. John 9 provides another, even clearer rebuttal of the destructive thinking that blames the ill for their illnesses. This passage tells of Jesus and his disciples encountering a man who was blind from birth. The disciples ask “who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus refutes their thinking, answering “it was not that this man sinned, or his parents.” There is simply no justifying a belief that people are morally responsible for their own health issues. Not from a Christian perspective, at least.

Now, I’ll concede that our life choices can influence our health, to an extent. Sometimes lifestyle choices can contribute to some health issues, though certainly not everyone who drinks heavily is equally likely to develop liver problems, not everyone who smokes is equally likely to get lung cancer, and not everyone who exercises regularly will avoid having a heart attack. Nevertheless it can be true that our decisions and lifestyles play a role in determining our health, along with a host of other factors outside of our control. But even when someone’s actions have negatively impacted their health, should we really punish people who for one reason or another were unable to make the healthiest choices during their life? Apparently Representative Brooks and others backing this current “healthcare” proposal think so. I disagree.

Another problem with Representative Brooks’ statements is that “pre-existing conditions” are not necessarily the same as “health issues” as we think of them. All kinds of things like pregnancy or having donated a kidney to save another’s life were considered pre-existing conditions before the Affordable Care Act came along. Does Representative Brooks seriously think that women who choose to be mothers or those who give their own kidneys to save the life of another don’t “lead good lives?” Does he realize that these sorts of things will be financially punished under the legislation he supports? I actually hope not, and that he is just sadly ignorant of the legislation he backs. It’s easier to understand that way.

To be fair, Brooks does say later in the interview that many people with pre-existing conditions have them through no fault of their own. But that simply does not reconcile with his earlier statements. Worse, if he does understand that people often are not at fault for their health issues, then he simply does not know or care that the legislation he supports unfairly punishes people who happen to get sick by making the care they need unaffordable. Whatever the case, this latest attempt to gut consumer protections for those who need healthcare the most is at best misguided and at worst a monstrously Darwinian attempt to save those who are fortunate enough to be healthy a few bucks at the expense of the lives of those with health problems. I for one will fight such evil as long as I can.