My opposition to the health care plan currently under consideration goes way beyond whether it funds abortion or not. Even if it passed with explicit language against funding of abortion I would still oppose it. Simply because it would be modified some point later on to fund it. Though the whole idea is inherently flawed. Jimmy Akin perfectly expresses my thoughts on this:
Any reasoned look at what is being proposed will lead to the conclusion that the long term effects of the program will be to increase costs (something bureaucracy does exceedingly well), increase taxes, lead to greater deficits, lead to health care rationing, drive private insurance out of the market, promote euthanasia, lead to more nanny state interventions in people’s lives, promote greater dependency on government, stifle the development of new medical treatments (just when we’re getting to the point that we might start seriously extending the human life), and basically kill a lot of people, both here in the U.S. and in other countries, which have been relying on American innovation since their own socialized medical systems put the squeeze on domestic innovation.
Why would anyone want that?
Name a big government program where the money spent was the same as what was forecasted? Normally they go three to ten times the fictional cost. But even worse the more the government gets involved in an area, the more they control it.
Manassas, Va. – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has ruled that a small Catholic college must include coverage for artificial contraceptives in its employee health insurance plan, raising new concerns about the need for conscience protections and religious exemptions in America’s health care policies.
The Cardinal Newman Society (CNS) today sent a letter to EEOC acting chairman Stuart Ishimaru, noting that “it is ironic that the federal agency responsible for protecting against discrimination has so blatantly engaged in an inexcusable violation of religious liberty in its Belmont Abbey ruling.”
CNS also is sending a letter to all Catholic bishops in the United States, informing them of the EEOC action against Belmont Abbey College and highlighting the dangerous precedent this ruling sets to force Catholic employers to included contraceptive coverage in employee health plans.
“No Catholic college or other institution should be required by government to violate the Catholic Church’s clear moral teachings,” said Patrick J. Reilly, President of The Cardinal Newman Society. “The apparently increasing insensitivity to religious beliefs should frighten all employers and employees. We urge religious leaders to stand in defense of Belmont Abbey College.”
This is the common practice of the government. They make up phony rights and force everyone to go along with them. Catholic Charities in California was forced to do the same thing in a case that went up to their Supreme Court. States again and again have trampled on the right of conscience for medical workers and pharmacists. The same knife that they have used to force contraception coverage is the same one they will use for abortion coverage. They will call it equality while denying the equality of the human person in the womb.
I find it so naive of the Catholic groups that support nationalized medicine. Can they really think that a President who supported infanticide and makes Special Olympics jokes along with a House containing politicians who deny the humanity of the unborn child are going to provide legislation that will be morally grounded. That these same Culture of Death supporters will ensure that boards dealing with the end of life are going to make moral decisions? This is either ignorance or a cooperation with the evils that will occur on some level. There is also a question of some of these Catholic advocates and the tie to federal money they will receive. On a coming “The World Over Live” Raymond Arroyo will be interviewing Catholic Health Association President Sister Carol. This trade organization has been very supportive of Obamacare and this should supply an interesting discussion considering come of Raymond’s criticisms recently.
This isn’t a Democrat/Republican divide. I totally oppose nationalized healthcare by any party. Romneycare in Massachusetts is just as much of a disaster as Obamacare. The only real difference between the two is that a national program harms the whole country. The problem is inherent in the idea, not the good will of the people who propose it. The road to deadly health care is paved with good intentions.
The Good Samaritan helped to provide medical care directly. He did not run back and tell the government there was a man on the road needing care. As Catholics we need to be personally involved in being a part of society in helping to provide health care instead of outsourcing our responsibility to the government.
What would you rather be seen as? As someone made in the image and likeness of God or as a line item in a spreadsheet on medical costs.
6 comments
Amen! Why is it that our Catholic leaders do not understand this? People like Sister Carol who advocate this brand of social justice are merely cowards too lazy to live the Gospel of Christ; they are merely content with mouthing platitudes and pretend. No doubt she has had a great deal of practice acting like the Pharisee in the story of the Good Samaritan and expecting someone else to handle the problem for her.
If these same people were so concerned about providing low cost health care, why don’t they offer medical care for free at the institutions they represent or are a part of and go out in beg in the street for the funds like St. Francis of Assisi St. Vincent de Paul? Imposing Obamacare upon us is no different than stealing and if Sister Carol is going to talk about social justice, maybe she should start with the 10 Commandments.
Moreover, the whole notion of socialized medicine is premised on the tenets of eugenics. Whenever a third person decides what health care you are entitled to, they are in effect deciding who gets to live and who has to die, whether it is the unborn, the handicapped, the elderly, folks who disagree with Sister Carol, etc…
And anyone who has studied history knows that wars for independence have started over less. I do not desire to live in the distopia Sister Carol envisions for us all.
Thank you Jeff. Both you and Jimmy had great writeups and I enjoyed reading them both.
I think your point about intentions vs the idea is key. It seems the spin lately has been that if you oppose this, you are selfish, don’t care about others, and would just as soon let that Samaritan die on the road. It couldn’t possibly be that you think the newly proposed legislation could make the situation worse (and reduce our liberty).
I am hoping that by commenting on this post, I would be able to get more insight from other people about this topic, as my perspective might be different from most.
I took a health policy class last year, wherein the number 16 was greatly emphasized because of its significance. We were told that the US spends 16% of GDP on health care and yet 16% of the population is uninsured. As a nation, we spend more on health care than Canada does, and yet our numbers are not that much better in terms of life expectancy (it is about the same). Among the industrialized nations, we are ranked lower in terms of delivering health care to its people.
In this day and age of chronic diseases (like high blood pressure, diabetes, etc), maintaining therapy (having uninterrupted medical treatment – ie drugs) is important to make sure the disease does not get worse. And if we allow people’s health insurance to be tied up with employment, then it would be really difficult for people to get the adequate care they would need if they lose their employment (and thus their health insurance), which is what we are seeing a lot of now. I work in a pharmacy, and we have a lot of customers who go off without their meds because they cannot afford them. And their condition becomes worse.
I also grew up in a 3rd world country where people die from preventable, curable diseases, because they cannot afford to seek and receive care/treatment. And I suppose because of this, I feel that some form of rationed health care is better than health care that only serves a small percentage of people who can afford it.
As to the comment that the Good Samaritan helped provide medical care directly rather than going to the government for help, it is easy for one person to help another person. But it is rather difficult for 1 person or small group of people to help a whole population receive medical care.
I do believe that we need to revamp our current health care system to cover, include and serve more people. But it does not need to be in the form of Obamacare.
Kate: As I understand it, our national health stats are quite good as compared to other industrialized countries. Our cancer survival rates are higher, and our life expectancy is quite good when our higher murder rate is factored in. Some claim that our infant mortality rate is higher, but that is because our stats count every child who shows any sign of life as a live birth. Other countries do not include children under certain weights or which do not survive for a minimum length of time.
Also, I wouldn’t trust anything I was told in a health policy class, or any other college/university class. My university and law school both only hired professors whose political views ranged from liberal to marxist. Maybe there were a few socially liberal Republicans in the Business School, but that would be it. My schools are not unique. Your professor is almost certainly a liberal. He/she may not even know any conservatives. So it is a fair possibility that you were only presently with one side of the health care story.
The number of Americans without health coverage for long periods has been greatly exaggerated. Millions are young people, in perfect health, who can afford to pay for health insurance but choose to spend their money elsewhere. Millions more are illegal aliens, not Americans. As much as I’d like to pay for the health insurance of every human on the planet, I just can’t afford to do so.
There are many other ways to lower the costs of health insurance, such as portability, tort reform, a tax deduction for individuals who purchase their own health insurance, etc.
But even if all the right actions are taken, there will still be some hard-luck stories. Utopia will never exist on earth. Humans are fallible, so all human institutions will fail to some degree. Institutions designed by utopians fail on a grand scale because they ignore the real world in the pursuit of the unattainable.
Proponents of socialized medicine are utopians.
I very much want to help others, but Obamacare won’t help anyone. It would undermine quality and give government control over our lives. Americans once took up arms against a controlling government. We are not Europeans or Canadians. We prefer to provide for ourselves rather than look to government.
Lastly, consider that the British national health system includes universal DENTAL care. Americans, most of whom pay entirely out-of-pocket for dental care, tend to each have a mouthful of straight, white teeth. In comparison, too many teeth of too many Britons are either not straight, not white, or not there.
Phil Lawyer,
The reason British people have worse teeth is not because of poor dental work on the NHS (I’m British by the way), is that cosmetic work is not covered on the NHS. I had teeth whitening and cosmetic braces and paid for them privately like americans do. And yes, we do have worse teeth, but we also have less cosmetic work done generally, which I think is a good thing.
Hey Dudes,
Trying for tips about what are the easiest teeth whitening products to purchase?
It has been hard to come across the up to date information as far as I can see. this place tells you one thing and another place informs you something completely different!
Well, I thought the smartest thing to do is get real information from you folks as you possibly have personal experience re this area.
All feedback is greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance guys.