Three Weeks Later, We’re Still Waiting
Sep 29, 2009
Francis X. Maier
Three weeks ago, President Barack Obama gave a stirring, and for many Catholics reassuring, speech to Congress on his own plan for healthcare reform. Two lines are worth remembering.
Here’s the first:
“I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it’s better politics to kill this plan than improve it. I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what’s in the plan, we will call you out.”
And here’s the second:
“And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up—under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”
That was three weeks ago. Three weeks later, there is still no president’s plan. And a growing number of committed Catholics—people who support healthcare reform as a matter of Catholic social doctrine—no longer believe he has one. Here’s a sample of that frustration from a friend who’s a political advisor on the East Coast:
President Obama is running his presidency in much the same way that he ran his campaign—saying things in a way that can be interpreted differently by different audiences. His campaign was a Rorschach test, and I’m afraid he’s treating healthcare reform the same way. The issue of federal funding for abortion is a prime example. Depending upon whom you talk to in Congress, the president’s pledge means very different things. In his remarks to the joint session of Congress on September 9, he seemed to give the impression that his own bill would be forthcoming, or at least outlined in more detail, and yet nothing has been presented to Congress or the American people.
The skeptic—and I am now reluctantly one—believes this is a strategy of delay. As long as people keep defining the debate according to their own interests, then the president can avoid taking sides, surf the confusion, and in the end just throw his hands up and say he must go along with whatever Congress produces, which will very likely be bad. This is not leadership. It is also not honest. But this deliberate ambiguity does serve to keep the Catholic voice largely muted.
The pattern of congressional and White House response to critics of current healthcare proposals has been instructive. Washington’s first impulse was to ignore them and fast track a flawed legislative project. That didn’t work. When grassroots public concern forced elected officials to listen—or at least to go through the motions of listening—a different media message began to emerge. The public was said to be “confused” by agents of the insurance industry, or the Republican Party, or religious fanatics, or racists, or social reactionaries, or special interests.
It’s quite true that some people will resist any kind of healthcare reform for bad motives—just as some people will support it, for equally misleading or manipulative reasons. But “healthcare reform” can legitimately mean different things to different people. It can be achieved in different ways. Catholic social doctrine does not mandate any particular legislative approach to solving our current healthcare problems. And impugning motives and calling people names simply because they challenge a proposed public policy—which is now the signature tactic of too many supporters of the current administration—is a form of lying. It destroys serious democratic debate.
A survey sponsored by the U.S. Catholic bishops in mid-September found that American adults, by a two to one margin, favor “reform to provide affordable health insurance for all.” Sixty-eight percent do not want abortion coverage in their own policy—whether public or private. Sixty-three percent favor keeping conscience protection laws in place.
The U.S. Catholic community and their bishops have supported sensible healthcare reform for decades. That remains true—but not at any cost. The Catholic Church has offered guidelines for moral healthcare reform that are simple, clear, and easily accessible to elected officials and citizens alike. President Obama has the prestige and leadership skill within his own party to insist that these guidelines be hardwired into any legislation.
Three weeks ago, the president spoke powerfully about his plan for healthcare reform. Three weeks later, we’re still waiting. Speaking to the nation as well as to Congress, he stressed, quite appropriately, that “if you [critics] misrepresent what’s in the plan, we will call you out.”
Fair enough. But of course, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. It’s time for Catholics to “call out” the White House to deliver on what it promised.
Francis X. Maier, the father of four, writes from Colorado.
Comments:
9.29.2009 | 6:22am
PaulR says:
There's that ridiculous phrase again - "Catholic Social Doctrine"
How Socialists and Progressives can sell anything to credulous Catholics.
How Socialists and Progressives can sell anything to credulous Catholics.
9.29.2009 | 6:25am
Joe DeVet says:
I don't think that some form of nationalized health care system is necessarily called for by Catholic Social Doctrine, as implied in this article, regardless of whether specific objections such as conscience and funding for abortion were finally resolved.
On the other hand, any nationalized health plan under the present administration and congress will be contrary to Catholic social doctrine, if not in the specific language of the bill, then in the details of how the bureaucracy will carry it out. Abortion will still be funded, and forcibly rationed care will still be a feature of it. Else it will be bankrupt sooner rather than later.
Thanks for pointing out that we're still waiting. But we can wait till kingdom come and the promises made by Obama about "his" plan will never come true.
On the other hand, any nationalized health plan under the present administration and congress will be contrary to Catholic social doctrine, if not in the specific language of the bill, then in the details of how the bureaucracy will carry it out. Abortion will still be funded, and forcibly rationed care will still be a feature of it. Else it will be bankrupt sooner rather than later.
Thanks for pointing out that we're still waiting. But we can wait till kingdom come and the promises made by Obama about "his" plan will never come true.
9.29.2009 | 8:56am
Guido says:
"And a growing number of committed Catholics—people who support healthcare reform as a matter of Catholic social doctrine—......."
What is this reform that committed Catholics support? Reform is a word that means nothing if you do not say what are you reforming into or towards. We can reform health care into totally socialized care or into totally "private sector care". Are we Catholics in favor of reform for reform's sake? Or are we for the reform being proposed by this administration (socialization of medicine - robbing Paul to pay Peter)?
The Church Social doctrine is SUBSIDIARITY: Let Paul be free to elect to be good and generous to Peter and become a saint instead of resentful of government coercion. Let Peter become grateful to Paul instead of entitled with respect to faceless state and dominated by sloth. That is Catholic. Anything else is mindless sentimentality, and the stupid belief that government is the only way to channel man's compassion and goodness (for the subliminal reason that "I can do good with other people's money - taxes").
What is this reform that committed Catholics support? Reform is a word that means nothing if you do not say what are you reforming into or towards. We can reform health care into totally socialized care or into totally "private sector care". Are we Catholics in favor of reform for reform's sake? Or are we for the reform being proposed by this administration (socialization of medicine - robbing Paul to pay Peter)?
The Church Social doctrine is SUBSIDIARITY: Let Paul be free to elect to be good and generous to Peter and become a saint instead of resentful of government coercion. Let Peter become grateful to Paul instead of entitled with respect to faceless state and dominated by sloth. That is Catholic. Anything else is mindless sentimentality, and the stupid belief that government is the only way to channel man's compassion and goodness (for the subliminal reason that "I can do good with other people's money - taxes").
9.29.2009 | 9:15am
Shan Gill says:
In all this talk of healthcare reform, we frequently hear the word 'right', but seldom do we hear 'duty'.
Healthcare is not a right for people, but a duty to people. Our Lord gave us the commandments, Love God above all else, and love our neighbor as ourself. This is a duty; an obligation. We are obligated to care for the less fortunate. But we cannot offload that obligation onto the gov't. The gov't has no soul, and it will not stand final judgement as you and I will.
Helping the less fortunate is the way of Christ, not the way of the emperor. If we think that we can rely on the emperor to deliver for us the way of Christ, we are completely lost.
The best thing the gov't can do is to stay out of the way and not confiscate the money of hardworking, generous people to fund a bureaucratic mess.
Healthcare is not a right for people, but a duty to people. Our Lord gave us the commandments, Love God above all else, and love our neighbor as ourself. This is a duty; an obligation. We are obligated to care for the less fortunate. But we cannot offload that obligation onto the gov't. The gov't has no soul, and it will not stand final judgement as you and I will.
Helping the less fortunate is the way of Christ, not the way of the emperor. If we think that we can rely on the emperor to deliver for us the way of Christ, we are completely lost.
The best thing the gov't can do is to stay out of the way and not confiscate the money of hardworking, generous people to fund a bureaucratic mess.
9.29.2009 | 9:59am
Guido says:
PaulR, Catholic Social Doctrine is not a ridiculous phrase. You should read it first and then opine. Start with Centesimus Annus (JPII) and then read the whole compendium of social doctrine. What you think Catholic Social Doctrine is, is what "progressives" who have not read a thing, tell you they think it is.
9.29.2009 | 10:12am
Kevin J Jones says:
"the president can avoid taking sides, surf the confusion, and in the end just throw his hands up and say he must go along with whatever Congress produces"
This is my worry about the president's statement on conscience protections and abortion funding. He can pass the buck to Congress.
"The pattern of congressional and White House response to critics of current healthcare proposals has been instructive. Washington’s first impulse was to ignore them and fast track a flawed legislative project."
It's worth noting that the Democrats were dismissing even before the large opposition began. In a July 3 meeting with Sen. Bennet in Denver, bill backers condescendingly criticized efforts "to scare religious voters away from reform." Rather than accommodate concerns by making explicit amendments, they had already committed themselves to dismissive psychoanalysis.
This is my worry about the president's statement on conscience protections and abortion funding. He can pass the buck to Congress.
"The pattern of congressional and White House response to critics of current healthcare proposals has been instructive. Washington’s first impulse was to ignore them and fast track a flawed legislative project."
It's worth noting that the Democrats were dismissing even before the large opposition began. In a July 3 meeting with Sen. Bennet in Denver, bill backers condescendingly criticized efforts "to scare religious voters away from reform." Rather than accommodate concerns by making explicit amendments, they had already committed themselves to dismissive psychoanalysis.
9.29.2009 | 12:39pm
AshleyM says:
If the president wants to fix certain aspects of healhcare, he should fix them. Not scrap the whole thing and come up a half a billion dollars short.
AND, he keeps saying that it won't add to the deficit!
The medicare thing has me upset also. If you cut half of the funding because it is ' misused', why not cut it anyway? Why hasn't it been done before?
The socialized healthcare, that is essentially what it is, does not work as it has been proved numerous times around the world and even in Massachusets and California.
The whole abortion issue. There is still a backdoor for the abortions to be paid for even if they say there isn't. It's all in the wording. Read the bill, then tell me that it isn't in there:) If you say it isn't to be found, read harder!!
Last thing, why are we paying for illegal immigrants healthcare? I understand that it is our duty to provide for the poor, but they broke the law in coming here. They belong in thier respective countries and those countries should support thier costs. This is the U.S., not Finland.
Several of you guys mentioned the Catholic Social Doctrine. Since when did we support this nationalized-socialistic stuff? NEVER! And while the idea is nice that no one would have to go without healthcare, it is not plausiible. It never has been, never will be.
You know, I just saw that the senate voted against Obama's plan!! Score!
AND, he keeps saying that it won't add to the deficit!
The medicare thing has me upset also. If you cut half of the funding because it is ' misused', why not cut it anyway? Why hasn't it been done before?
The socialized healthcare, that is essentially what it is, does not work as it has been proved numerous times around the world and even in Massachusets and California.
The whole abortion issue. There is still a backdoor for the abortions to be paid for even if they say there isn't. It's all in the wording. Read the bill, then tell me that it isn't in there:) If you say it isn't to be found, read harder!!
Last thing, why are we paying for illegal immigrants healthcare? I understand that it is our duty to provide for the poor, but they broke the law in coming here. They belong in thier respective countries and those countries should support thier costs. This is the U.S., not Finland.
Several of you guys mentioned the Catholic Social Doctrine. Since when did we support this nationalized-socialistic stuff? NEVER! And while the idea is nice that no one would have to go without healthcare, it is not plausiible. It never has been, never will be.
You know, I just saw that the senate voted against Obama's plan!! Score!
9.29.2009 | 12:48pm
AshleyM says:
This is to amend my last post. The Senate FINANCE Committee voted against it, not the Senate! I was wondering how I missed the senate vote!!
Sorry for the confusion...:)
Sorry for the confusion...:)
9.29.2009 | 1:49pm
Chris says:
Catholic Social Doctrine has become the 'home boy' for all that is liberal and it is too bad. As Catholics we have a tradition of Social Teaching that should be the envy of all, but instead it is assumed by most to be the summation of Cardinal Bernidin's 'Seamless garmet'. And as such, it becomes nothing more than sentimentality which leads to socialism and totalitarianism as JPII said often times and in his encyclicals on Catholic Social teaching. That is why he wanted a balance between solidarity and subsidiarity. The latter meaning that we should always and everywhere look for viable, caring solutions to be accomplished at the lowest level possible; the family first, the parish, the diocese, the city, the State etc. Catholic Social Teaching shuns 'Statism' as we are seeing it put forth with the current administration.
Catholic social teaching has at its foundation, the dignity of the human person, from conception to natural death. There is no equivocation on that allowed. Without it, according to JPII, there is no social teaching. There is no equivalency between abortion and Capital Punishment, or war or or or. None. He clearly teaches that while we all must remember we ARE our brothers' keeper, we must also remember that there is no human dignity when we are a slave to government and secularism. When one's brother never has the satisfaction of a good day's work.
Catholics need to READ the encyclicals and not the left and right who try to make them political and 'proof text' their particular side of the issue. Catholic social teaching is not sentimental at all and it is surely not political, rather it is uniquely Catholic.
Catholic social teaching has at its foundation, the dignity of the human person, from conception to natural death. There is no equivocation on that allowed. Without it, according to JPII, there is no social teaching. There is no equivalency between abortion and Capital Punishment, or war or or or. None. He clearly teaches that while we all must remember we ARE our brothers' keeper, we must also remember that there is no human dignity when we are a slave to government and secularism. When one's brother never has the satisfaction of a good day's work.
Catholics need to READ the encyclicals and not the left and right who try to make them political and 'proof text' their particular side of the issue. Catholic social teaching is not sentimental at all and it is surely not political, rather it is uniquely Catholic.
9.29.2009 | 2:21pm
ctd says:
Too many here are rallying against something that is not there, i.e. socialized medicine or nationalized health care. Supporting health care as a matter of Catholic social doctrine does not necessarily mean supporting nationalization or government-run health care and no bishop or the USCCB has said that it does. Moreover, none of the seriously proposed plans involve government takeover of health care delivery. Opponents of reform should stick to explaining why the actual reforms proposals do not conform to Catholic social doctrine (such as the life issues.)
As to PaulR's comment: ridiculous? JPII commissioned a whole compendium on the social doctrine of the Church. Calling it ridiculous is as offensive as calling any doctrine of the Church ridiculous.
As to PaulR's comment: ridiculous? JPII commissioned a whole compendium on the social doctrine of the Church. Calling it ridiculous is as offensive as calling any doctrine of the Church ridiculous.
9.29.2009 | 5:48pm
Cooper says:
Even Pope Benedict has been clear on the distinction of Catholic doctrine: it's about the individual, not Marxism. I strongly disagree with the author's statement that "Catholic social doctrine" somehow supports the politics of "healthcare" as Obama has defined it. Christ doesn't tell us, nor does the Church, to forcefully take property from someone in order to fulfill our desires that someone else more deserves it. But that is the essence of what Obama and today's Democrats are 'preaching'. And what they are 'preaching' is an abuse of Catholic theology and a blasphemy on so many levels of God and His Son.
9.29.2009 | 6:09pm
Richard says:
He is lying, lying, lying. Has been since he first came on the scene. Do not know
if he is lying because he has other motives, or because it is habitual. And his
thinking is something to wonder, how can the passing of any health Plan be a greater priority then our troops who are already in harms way.
How can he say, we can study the Generals request but yet wants Congress
to pass ANY health plan ASAP?? Even if Congress does not have time to read what they are going to pass, much less study it.
And forget about us who elected the whole bunch.
The Health Care can wait. I have yet to meet one American who was denied
health care because they did not have insurance. There are many sources available for the poor to receive health care. "We the people" take care of our
own, not the Government.
If any health care plan is passed it will have abortion or have a
door open to allow the additon of abortion at some future date.
You can say, we wrote this letter or that letter explaining our options and
all Congress is seeing is some one who supports their plan. We need to say
NO! Period. Hold off until the mid election then vote for strong CHristians.
At that point we can talk health plan
The President wants us to look at his right hand doing all those cute moves
while his left had is getting ready to slap us silly. The answer at this time has
to be NO! to any health plan that is being proposed.
God Bless
if he is lying because he has other motives, or because it is habitual. And his
thinking is something to wonder, how can the passing of any health Plan be a greater priority then our troops who are already in harms way.
How can he say, we can study the Generals request but yet wants Congress
to pass ANY health plan ASAP?? Even if Congress does not have time to read what they are going to pass, much less study it.
And forget about us who elected the whole bunch.
The Health Care can wait. I have yet to meet one American who was denied
health care because they did not have insurance. There are many sources available for the poor to receive health care. "We the people" take care of our
own, not the Government.
If any health care plan is passed it will have abortion or have a
door open to allow the additon of abortion at some future date.
You can say, we wrote this letter or that letter explaining our options and
all Congress is seeing is some one who supports their plan. We need to say
NO! Period. Hold off until the mid election then vote for strong CHristians.
At that point we can talk health plan
The President wants us to look at his right hand doing all those cute moves
while his left had is getting ready to slap us silly. The answer at this time has
to be NO! to any health plan that is being proposed.
God Bless
9.29.2009 | 6:57pm
Francis X. Maier says:
"Healthcare reform" can take a lot of different shapes, and a nationalized system (or some public variant thereof) is probably the least attractive and most financially problematic form. In Catholic thought, government can certainly play a legitimate role in ensuring adequate coverage for the maximum number of people. But that's not the preferred course, and other solutions should be sought first. One place to start is capping medical malpractice settlements at some reasonable level. But good luck selling that to trial lawyers.
9.29.2009 | 7:09pm
Michael says:
"... a growing number of committed Catholics—people who support healthcare reform as a matter of Catholic social doctrine..."
Committed Catholics? Perhaps they could commit themselves to the knowledge that a "healthcare reform" is not a part of Catholci social doctrine, and that any government health care plan is even less so.
The statement is moral preening at best, and a declaration that you really care nothing at all about Catholicism, health care, or reform - at least not enough to even educate yourselves about what those terms mean.
My God...our standards of education have slipped so far that the ignorami of the world give themselves points for being sentimental fools.
Committed Catholics? Perhaps they could commit themselves to the knowledge that a "healthcare reform" is not a part of Catholci social doctrine, and that any government health care plan is even less so.
The statement is moral preening at best, and a declaration that you really care nothing at all about Catholicism, health care, or reform - at least not enough to even educate yourselves about what those terms mean.
My God...our standards of education have slipped so far that the ignorami of the world give themselves points for being sentimental fools.
9.29.2009 | 8:16pm
Brian says:
While I am in agreement that we are still waiting for "the" plan from the White House, there is another matter to continue. Most of the comments preceding mine talk about "socialized medicine," "forcefully taking property" and other ideas with which corporate welfare is sold by Conservatives and Libertarians to credulous Catholics. (Ah, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.)
Catholic Social Teaching as given by Christ himself, several papal encyclicals and letters of bishops' conferences is a deep and rich body. Yes, it is about promoting individual holiness but it is also about protecting the weak and helpless. That is, after all, why we so vehemently and clearly argue for life instead of abortion.
The existing situation that means losing a job is losing insurance and that allows insurance providers too often to be insurance deniers is cold and heartless. We who respect life should be embarassed to proclaim otherwise. Whether the President and Congress are going about correcting this in the right way is debatable. Whether the system needs fixing or that word which so frightens the right, reform, is undeniable.
John Paul II clearly pointed out that the completely unencumbered free market is no more desirable than socialism. At least the democrats are trying to do something to stop the bleeding. If we wait any longer the life may have drained out of too many but the richest and most powerful.
Catholic Social Teaching as given by Christ himself, several papal encyclicals and letters of bishops' conferences is a deep and rich body. Yes, it is about promoting individual holiness but it is also about protecting the weak and helpless. That is, after all, why we so vehemently and clearly argue for life instead of abortion.
The existing situation that means losing a job is losing insurance and that allows insurance providers too often to be insurance deniers is cold and heartless. We who respect life should be embarassed to proclaim otherwise. Whether the President and Congress are going about correcting this in the right way is debatable. Whether the system needs fixing or that word which so frightens the right, reform, is undeniable.
John Paul II clearly pointed out that the completely unencumbered free market is no more desirable than socialism. At least the democrats are trying to do something to stop the bleeding. If we wait any longer the life may have drained out of too many but the richest and most powerful.
9.30.2009 | 10:43am
Chris says:
Yes, completely unfettered capitalism is no more desirable than socialism.
A couple of points should be noted though.
First it is important Catholic social teaching includes the principle of "subsidiarity", which states that the weak & sick should be helped by the body closest to them, not by some distant & overarching entity.
Second, the enthusiasm for socialism by so many Catholics has to do with difficulty comprehending that intentions do not justify evil. In other words, "The ends do not justify the means".
The Democrats (and all socialists) may have wonderful intentions, but intent does not make one's actions automatically "good", nor do intentions justify attempts to "at least try".
The prevailing notion all over the place is that "Republicans don't have any alternative plan" & that they aren't even trying, which is either breathtakingly ignorant, or a complete lie.
There are SEVERAL alternative plans that have been proposed by Republicans, all of which have been buried immediately in multiple committees to die by Nancy Pelosi, and pointedly ignored by the entire media establishment. Sadly, whenever one or more of those plans are brought up, everyone in the room responds with "cow eyes", as if you just started speaking in tongues.
All of them are far superior to ANY version of a "White House Plan", (BTW, the President is NOT a king, or a supreme dictator, despite his ego.) The alternative plan that appears the best is the Patients Choice Act (H.R. 2520), a 248 page bill, which was introduced on May 20, 2009. (And immediately shoved off to several committees to die by Nancy Pelosi.)
HR 2520 (and its companion Senate bill, S. 1044) would actually address needed health care & insurance reforms in a manner far more consistent with Catholic social teaching, without violating the principle of subsidiarity, or by creating a gigantic, expensive, and inefficient bureaucracy which has little to no connection to the people who it purports to help.
A couple of points should be noted though.
First it is important Catholic social teaching includes the principle of "subsidiarity", which states that the weak & sick should be helped by the body closest to them, not by some distant & overarching entity.
Second, the enthusiasm for socialism by so many Catholics has to do with difficulty comprehending that intentions do not justify evil. In other words, "The ends do not justify the means".
The Democrats (and all socialists) may have wonderful intentions, but intent does not make one's actions automatically "good", nor do intentions justify attempts to "at least try".
The prevailing notion all over the place is that "Republicans don't have any alternative plan" & that they aren't even trying, which is either breathtakingly ignorant, or a complete lie.
There are SEVERAL alternative plans that have been proposed by Republicans, all of which have been buried immediately in multiple committees to die by Nancy Pelosi, and pointedly ignored by the entire media establishment. Sadly, whenever one or more of those plans are brought up, everyone in the room responds with "cow eyes", as if you just started speaking in tongues.
All of them are far superior to ANY version of a "White House Plan", (BTW, the President is NOT a king, or a supreme dictator, despite his ego.) The alternative plan that appears the best is the Patients Choice Act (H.R. 2520), a 248 page bill, which was introduced on May 20, 2009. (And immediately shoved off to several committees to die by Nancy Pelosi.)
HR 2520 (and its companion Senate bill, S. 1044) would actually address needed health care & insurance reforms in a manner far more consistent with Catholic social teaching, without violating the principle of subsidiarity, or by creating a gigantic, expensive, and inefficient bureaucracy which has little to no connection to the people who it purports to help.
Health care as propounded by many Democrats is tremendously problematic. Our politicians need to be responsible and recognize that the overwhelming government role they intend and the huge cost it would incur would be detrimental rather than an improvement. And if they are so certain of the contrary then they should not be unwilling (as they are) to allow the public appropriate time to examine whatever comes out of their committee deliberations. The Senate committee refused to allow their "final" fruits to be published on the Internet in relatively plain language for three days and refused to allow the costs to be plainly published either. These are not the actions of people who are confident that the public wil greet their exertions with approval. These are the actions of people who want to ram through their own agenda even though the public is not on board.
The president could certainly, if he wished, propose his own specific plan. But that would entail committing himself and, in the process, losing additional "supporters" who, in continued vagueness, can console themselves that he is with them. He wants to be all things to all people as long as possible, it seems. Congress has to slog through the details and be "the bad guy" while the president spends his time making public appearances.