A Healthcare Problem Washington May Have Missed
Nov 6, 2009
Bishop James D. Conley
With more than 620 Catholic hospitals serving the public around the United States, hundreds of Catholic medical clinics and shelters, and even a few Catholic-affiliated medical schools, Catholics have a keen interest in healthcare reform. That interest isn’t new. It’s rooted in experience, including the experience of trying to help people with little or no health insurance at all. For decades, the U.S. bishops have pushed for an overhaul of our nation’s healthcare industry and the way it delivers its services. Why? Because the Church sees access to basic health care as a right and a social responsibility, not a privilege.
But Catholic support for the general principle of reform does not bind anyone to endorse a specific piece of legislation. God gave us brains for a reason, to think; and we need to use them, because the practical and moral problems we face on the way to good healthcare reform are as formidable as the goal is admirable. This is why the U.S. bishops’ conference has tried so diligently for the past three months to work with Congress and the White House in seeking sound compromise legislation. As of November 5, all those efforts have failed.
The bishops have a few simple but important priorities.
First, everyone should have access to basic health care, including immigrants. The Church would hope to see that access broadened as widely as possible. But at a minimum, it should include those immigrants who live and work in the United States legally. Second, reform should respect the dignity of every person, from conception to natural death. This means that the elderly and persons with disabilities must be treated with special care and sensitivity. It also means that abortion and abortion funding should be excluded from any reform plan, no matter how adroitly the abortion funding is masked. Whatever one thinks about its legality, abortion has nothing to do with advancing human “health,” and a large number of Americans regard it as a gravely wrong act of violence, not only against unborn children but also against women.
Third, real healthcare reform needs to include explicit, ironclad conscience protections for medical professionals and institutions so that they cannot be forced to violate their moral convictions. Fourth—and this is so obvious it sometimes goes unstated—any reform must be economically realistic and financially sustainable. We can’t help anyone, including ourselves, if we’re insolvent. If we commit ourselves to health services, then we need to have the will and the ability to really pay for them. That’s a moral issue, not simply a practical one.
Note that these priorities do not attack the constitutional status of abortion. That’s a different battle. Nor do they take anything away from people who regard themselves as pro-choice. But they do protect the rights of the many, many citizens who see abortion as tragic and evil, and refuse to be implicated in supporting it.
Given the broad Catholic support for some kind of comprehensive healthcare reform, the historic links of the Democratic Party to the Catholic community, and the party’s total control of the White House and both chambers of Congress, the reform legislation actually moving through Congress as I write these comments on November 5 is not only inadequate and baffling, but insulting and dangerous.
With the exception of a few leaders, like Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak, Congress has ignored or rejected every attempt at resolving the serious concerns voiced by the bishops—or alternately, has pushed solutions like the Capps Amendment that do not solve the problems, and even create new ones. The White House has done nothing to intervene. “Common ground” thinking in Washington apparently has more reality as public relations than as public policy. And as a result, all of the main healthcare reform proposals in Congress, including the huge, 2,000-page merged House bill, are fatally flawed. Unless they are immediately and adequately amended, they need to be opposed and defeated.
For all of Congress’ public talk about “consensus building” and “consensus health care,” Washington has proved once again that hearing loss can be job-related. Most American Catholics, from people in the pews to pastors and bishops, want healthcare reform to work. But too many people in Washington don’t know how to listen, or don’t want to listen, or just don’t care.
James D. Conley, S.T.L., is the auxiliary bishop of Denver.
Comments:
11.6.2009 | 10:32am
Fr. Richard j. Mc Donald says:
AMEN!
11.6.2009 | 11:06am
Carl Eppig says:
In addition to all the above there are at least two other major concerns. The first is the taking of $500 billion out of Medicare. This will be disasterours for seniors. The second is the raising of eligibility levels for medicare. If this is what is necessary to cover some that are currently uncovered that is well and good so long as it is federally funded. If current rules are observed, though, huge fiscal requirements will be pushed onto the states, almost all of which cannot afford it in any shape or manner. It would bankrupt my home state of New Hampshire.
And the kicker is that our local congresswoman who is a "Catholic" and indeed a fellow parishioner, who has received hundreds if not thousands of calls, will most likely vote for it!
And the kicker is that our local congresswoman who is a "Catholic" and indeed a fellow parishioner, who has received hundreds if not thousands of calls, will most likely vote for it!
11.6.2009 | 11:07am
Paul says:
I'm not Catholic. But shouldn't the Bishops perhaps also emphasize the importance of any healthcare provision by government being framed in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. And might not, therefore, Christians who subscribe to the principle resist the notion that it is the job of the national government to provide healthcare even if the national government should seek to encourage a state of affairs in which health care is provided. Or, to put all this another way, Christians opposed to provision of healthcare by the national government are NOT necessarily opposed to universal coverage. They may just be opposed to the notion that the attempt to provide it at the national level is a viable route to sustainable provision. Some might think that subsidiarity suggests better routes more in accordance with federalism rightly understood. So do the Bishops make explicit that working for universal coverage is not logically (or theologically) equivalent to supporting a national plan??
11.6.2009 | 12:00pm
Leo Holahan says:
Can nothing be done by the Catholic Church Heirarchy to utilize the threat of formal Excommunication with regard to so called "Catholic" legislative ring-leaders who seem to persist and thrive; without any visible oposition or criticism, in advancing the interests of the pro-abortion lobby by bribing (with pork barrel spending) and or browbeating more faithful Catholic (and Catholic sympathetic) legislators into accepting a seriously flawed pro-abortion and economically disasterous healthcare "reform" package. It seems to me that the very real threat of a potentially public chastisement is appropriate in order to nuetralize this outrageous scandalous and nonsensical apostasy from Catholic teaching.
11.6.2009 | 1:52pm
Greg Miller says:
Paul is exactly on mark when he emphasizes the principle of subsidiarity--that problems should be solved at the lowest level of social organization capable of solving them. The larger the social organization, the less humane and efficient it tends to become.
Healthcare reform must BEGIN at the level of the individual, not the federal government. Proper diet, exercise, and sleep are the foundation for health, and many of the expensive medical conditions of our society begin at the level of the individual. According to the CDC, lung cancer is the second most common type of cancer, and the most lethal. Although 80-90% of all cases of lung cancer are attributable to smoking, millions of individuals continue this irresponsible practice.
From obesity and Type II Diabetes to heart disease, the avoidable habits and addictions of individuals account for the lion's share of American healthcare costs. We will never succeed in curbing healthcare costs or delivering true health while we fail to address the matter at the level of individual responsibility.
Healthcare reform must BEGIN at the level of the individual, not the federal government. Proper diet, exercise, and sleep are the foundation for health, and many of the expensive medical conditions of our society begin at the level of the individual. According to the CDC, lung cancer is the second most common type of cancer, and the most lethal. Although 80-90% of all cases of lung cancer are attributable to smoking, millions of individuals continue this irresponsible practice.
From obesity and Type II Diabetes to heart disease, the avoidable habits and addictions of individuals account for the lion's share of American healthcare costs. We will never succeed in curbing healthcare costs or delivering true health while we fail to address the matter at the level of individual responsibility.
11.6.2009 | 2:40pm
Fr. Eric Weldon says:
Good comments by all. Bishop Conley has made the valid points. We should embrace the principles of subsidiarity, and he addresses this in an interview with Catholic News Agency. Emphasizing health care for legal immigrants seems to be redundant language. Were not the bishops speaking of health care for illegals? Would most of the bishops be against this bill if it had no provisions for abortion?
This administration and most legislators do not have the sanctity of life and the principles of subsidiarity as their foundation; furthermore, as the entire program will be economically disastrous at the national level, the health care bill must not be supported.
There can be little or no consensus building or common ground with a president who champions abortion and the destruction of marriage as a means of transforming this nation.
This administration and most legislators do not have the sanctity of life and the principles of subsidiarity as their foundation; furthermore, as the entire program will be economically disastrous at the national level, the health care bill must not be supported.
There can be little or no consensus building or common ground with a president who champions abortion and the destruction of marriage as a means of transforming this nation.
11.6.2009 | 3:09pm
Reason60 says:
As a Catholic, Bishop Conley's comments are well taken and he makes the Catholic case for healthcare better than I can.
The idea that carying for the sick is not a trivial benefit akin to a solar tax credit, but is in fact a moral mandate, something essential to a decent and just society.
However, inasmuch as teh Bishops have entered the political fray, political calculations come into play.
Currently tens of thousands of innocent lives are lost each year due to lack of health care; hundreds of thousnds more are ruined by bankruptcy and poverty caused by inadequate insurance.
Further, major health care reform is a once in a decade opportunity; the political will and organization to proceed is nearly balanced out by the opposing party, which has as its mandate an implacable opposition to universal coverage.
I would suggest that the more moral case would be to press as hard as possible for abortion funding restrictions in this bill, but insist on it passing regardless.
First, it is easier to amend the bill next year to restrict abortion funding, than it is to create a new healthcare reform in the next term.
Second, abortions are a low-cost precedure- restricting funding has very little effect on the number of women seeking it. So even allowing for the chance that the bill will cover abortion, it is extremely unlikely that the number of abortions will rise.
If this bill is not passed, we will need to wait another decade or longer to get another one, and in that decade, hundreds of thousands of innocent lives will have been sacrificed needlessly causing untold misery for millions more.
Whereas passing the bill now will not result in any abortions that would have not happened otherwise.
The idea that carying for the sick is not a trivial benefit akin to a solar tax credit, but is in fact a moral mandate, something essential to a decent and just society.
However, inasmuch as teh Bishops have entered the political fray, political calculations come into play.
Currently tens of thousands of innocent lives are lost each year due to lack of health care; hundreds of thousnds more are ruined by bankruptcy and poverty caused by inadequate insurance.
Further, major health care reform is a once in a decade opportunity; the political will and organization to proceed is nearly balanced out by the opposing party, which has as its mandate an implacable opposition to universal coverage.
I would suggest that the more moral case would be to press as hard as possible for abortion funding restrictions in this bill, but insist on it passing regardless.
First, it is easier to amend the bill next year to restrict abortion funding, than it is to create a new healthcare reform in the next term.
Second, abortions are a low-cost precedure- restricting funding has very little effect on the number of women seeking it. So even allowing for the chance that the bill will cover abortion, it is extremely unlikely that the number of abortions will rise.
If this bill is not passed, we will need to wait another decade or longer to get another one, and in that decade, hundreds of thousands of innocent lives will have been sacrificed needlessly causing untold misery for millions more.
Whereas passing the bill now will not result in any abortions that would have not happened otherwise.
11.6.2009 | 3:21pm
Wj says:
I agree wholeheartedly with Bishop Conley here, but it is dispiriting to see in the comments section a refusal to engage with the radical nature of the bishops' position: *all* deserve healthcare as a necessary component of our society's common good, including illegals and individuals who may themselves make poor decisions about their own health and nutrition. This position is prior to and more important than the prudential means by which it may best be achieved. All studies have shown that the most efficient way of achieving the bishops' goal is to adopt a single-payer system-- the very thing that, for different, and largely ideological reasons having nothing to do with the unborn or conscience clauses, will never be considered in this country.
11.6.2009 | 3:38pm
Suann M says:
Reason60's good comments are understandable, but they inadvertently shift responsibility for the success or failure of this legislation onto Catholics and their bishops. That's a mistake. If Congress and the White House are so intransigent now regarding these pretty reasonable Catholic priorities, when the bill is struggling for passage, the likelihood that they'll be more open to revisions next year, when they need Catholic support even less, is extremely low. Catholics didn't create this last-minute battle over the bill's success. Congress and the White House did. The burden is on them, not the bishops.
11.6.2009 | 3:51pm
Thomas says:
I hope we all can learn to view these issues from a humanistic point of view and not a Catholic only agenda. This is a major social issue that have many of our politiicians ignoring or relunctant to take a stand on what the next step to take is. Let us all move forward and support the priorites Bishop James Conley has presented in his letter of November 6, 2009. As a member of the Catholic faith, I support the priorities outlined in this letter.
11.6.2009 | 4:10pm
Linda says:
Around be me, the Catholic health care is 1/5 and the secular is 4/5ths in the same conglomeration! Because of economics, the Catholics sold out a major portion of the ministry (?).
Well, the 1/5 is nice and the 4/5ths is monstrous.
I always say that the holy went to bed with the unholy, and now the holy is tainted just the same. Nothing is holy.
It is no wonder why now Catholics who sold out aren't being taken seriously.
A ministry can't run along side (especially in the same conglomerate) ruthless business. The two are not compatible. The ministry can't close their eyes to what the ruthless business portion is up to and STILL maintain that their ministry is holy. It just doesn't work that way.
It must be all for one and one for all, otherwise forget the 'ministry' all together.
It hasn't been a ministry around be me since 1996 because that's when they let the snakes into the system to do the dirty work.
Well, the 1/5 is nice and the 4/5ths is monstrous.
I always say that the holy went to bed with the unholy, and now the holy is tainted just the same. Nothing is holy.
It is no wonder why now Catholics who sold out aren't being taken seriously.
A ministry can't run along side (especially in the same conglomerate) ruthless business. The two are not compatible. The ministry can't close their eyes to what the ruthless business portion is up to and STILL maintain that their ministry is holy. It just doesn't work that way.
It must be all for one and one for all, otherwise forget the 'ministry' all together.
It hasn't been a ministry around be me since 1996 because that's when they let the snakes into the system to do the dirty work.
11.6.2009 | 4:58pm
Joseph F Maloney says:
AMEN! Reuse this tool for inputs to the Public Square. JFM
11.6.2009 | 8:06pm
Diane says:
Thank you, Paul, for suggesting that the Bishops emphasize the principle of subsidiarity in framing their support for any government involvement in the provision of health care. While the Church can certainly promote solidarity in terms of our Christian responsibilities to provide the institutions, equipment and personnel to assure that the potential for care exists, it is persons who serve and who are served and it is important that those relationships remain the context for care. The closer to home decisions are made - whether deciding when to finance a local hospital, deciding what expensive medical equipment to equip it with, or deciding when it is time to stop lifesaving measures and simply to offer relief from pain and a hand to hold as a loved one passes - the more those decisions will reflect what is valued by those subject to them.
We have created too much dependence on the State to provide what human relationships should be providing and the result is that people are alienated from one another. Many don't love and aren't loved. Our Bishops should be talking less to politicians about grand plans and more to their flocks about simpler ones.
We have created too much dependence on the State to provide what human relationships should be providing and the result is that people are alienated from one another. Many don't love and aren't loved. Our Bishops should be talking less to politicians about grand plans and more to their flocks about simpler ones.
11.6.2009 | 10:10pm
Jody Dendurent says:
I believe that Bishop Conley's good points should hold true for all Christians. In addition, in towns like Wichita the loss of the Catholic health care system would be disastrous. Please contact your congress-men and -women and urge them to vote no.
I also agree with Greg Miller above. If this country wants to reform our health care system the government should advocate caring for our health. They could give incentives to organic farmers, give tax breaks to people who have a garden, outlaw chemical pesticides and herbicides, work to clean up our drinking water, put tough restrictions on smokers. Individuals need to turn off the TV and computer, get outside, exercise, take responsibility for what is put into our body. Doctors need to educate themselves on nutrition and preventive health and finding the cause of a problem instead of passing out pills that only treat symptoms. Insurers need to get a clue about the benefits of time-tested treatments like acupuncture and homeopathy.
But for now....stand up against this bill !!!!
I also agree with Greg Miller above. If this country wants to reform our health care system the government should advocate caring for our health. They could give incentives to organic farmers, give tax breaks to people who have a garden, outlaw chemical pesticides and herbicides, work to clean up our drinking water, put tough restrictions on smokers. Individuals need to turn off the TV and computer, get outside, exercise, take responsibility for what is put into our body. Doctors need to educate themselves on nutrition and preventive health and finding the cause of a problem instead of passing out pills that only treat symptoms. Insurers need to get a clue about the benefits of time-tested treatments like acupuncture and homeopathy.
But for now....stand up against this bill !!!!
11.7.2009 | 7:55am
Alice Vozzo says:
We need to maintain a “big picture” view of each and every measure proposed and enacted by the current administration and majority party. How can we expect or even hope for a healthcare system that is framed in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, when the political philosophy and intent of the current administration—already made manifest in its claim to ownership of private enterprise via so-called “bailouts”—is diametrically opposed to this principle? Further, the subsequent labeling of these economic measures as a move towards socialism is not quite accurate. We are not a democracy (where subsidiarity would be possible) on the road towards socialism. We are an oligarchy on the road towards implosion. How can we expect our legislators to craft and enact healthcare legislation for the common good when these same legislators have pre- exempted themselves from participation in this proposed enactment of a healthcare system that would be mandatory for us? Even the majority of those we elected to our legislature have been rendered powerless to truly represent us, finding themselves trapped in a power-broking, arm-twisting system run by the elite few and the special interests that put them and keep them in power.
In the Second Book of Kings, we find the prophet Elisha’s servant waking one morning to find the city surrounded by an enemy army of horses and chariots. In view of the current political and economic situation we are facing, like Elisha’s servant, we might find ourselves presently crying out , “Alas, my master! What shall we do?” Let us not despair, but instead take hold of Elisha’s response, "Do not be afraid, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them." What Elisha saw, and what his servant saw after Elisha asked God to open his servany's eyes, was an angelic army—“the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.” Let us exercise the faith we profess. Pray. Pray for the Church, for our elected officials. Cry out to God with faith, that the eyes of the blind may be opened. Cry out to your elected officials. Proclaim the truth in love. When you exhort them to represent you with their vote, also encourage them; tell them you are praying for them. Many people are converted by intercessory prayer; some are converted just by the realization that they are prayed for.
In the Second Book of Kings, we find the prophet Elisha’s servant waking one morning to find the city surrounded by an enemy army of horses and chariots. In view of the current political and economic situation we are facing, like Elisha’s servant, we might find ourselves presently crying out , “Alas, my master! What shall we do?” Let us not despair, but instead take hold of Elisha’s response, "Do not be afraid, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them." What Elisha saw, and what his servant saw after Elisha asked God to open his servany's eyes, was an angelic army—“the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.” Let us exercise the faith we profess. Pray. Pray for the Church, for our elected officials. Cry out to God with faith, that the eyes of the blind may be opened. Cry out to your elected officials. Proclaim the truth in love. When you exhort them to represent you with their vote, also encourage them; tell them you are praying for them. Many people are converted by intercessory prayer; some are converted just by the realization that they are prayed for.
11.7.2009 | 10:02am
Frank E. Howard says:
I am a Catholic and a member of the Secular Franciscan Order. I have worked for many years as an immigration lawyer, both in government positions and in the private sector. I strongly agree with the U.S. bishops' opposition to federal funds for abortion. But I don't agree that the federal government should subsidize health care for non-citizens, apart from true emergency medical treatments, whether the non-citizens are legal permanent residents, temporary workers, foreign students, visitors for business or pleasure (tourists), persons who have overstayed their authorized stays, persons who entered with fradulent documents or persons who have entered by illegal border crossings.
More generally, I disagree with the frequent language of the bishops describing health care as a "right," because that term as used in the United States connotes something provided or guaranteed by government. Earlier in my career I worked for nearly a decade serving poor U.S. citizens, many of them on welfare. I discovered that government benefits are often a long-term cause of poverty, not a cure. Reform of the welfare system was one of the best accomplishments of President Bill Clinton. Private charitable efforts are an integral part of U.S. society, with much less danger of creating chronic passive dependency. Our goals of helping the poor are often impeded by government programs. President Obama's health care plan is likely to cause more suffering than it cures.
More generally, I disagree with the frequent language of the bishops describing health care as a "right," because that term as used in the United States connotes something provided or guaranteed by government. Earlier in my career I worked for nearly a decade serving poor U.S. citizens, many of them on welfare. I discovered that government benefits are often a long-term cause of poverty, not a cure. Reform of the welfare system was one of the best accomplishments of President Bill Clinton. Private charitable efforts are an integral part of U.S. society, with much less danger of creating chronic passive dependency. Our goals of helping the poor are often impeded by government programs. President Obama's health care plan is likely to cause more suffering than it cures.
11.7.2009 | 12:18pm
Reason60 says:
I read today that a compromise has been reached whereby on abortions for rape or incest or lifethreatening cases will be covered; all others will not.
Given that these cases are exceedingly rare, and would result in perhaps a few hundred abortions being funded, while in the meantime saving 45 THOUSAND lives and preventing the untold misery for millions more of bankruptcy, can the Catholic Bishops support this bill now?
I find it ironic that the same Church that shows such loving compassion towards the poor and suffering throughout the world can now, with blithe indifference, dismiss the pain and suffering of the tens of thousands who die each year due to lack of health care; instead we are treated to scolding about lifestyle changes, unhealthy eating habits, and such that could have been written by Dickens or Jonathan Swift, if only in bitter satire.
In a bit of gentle scolding, I might ask- where have the Bishops been in this debate? Political parties have been advocating universal health care for decades, and yet I can't recall the Catholic Bishops getting seriously involved- instead of being a loud and bold voice insisting on providing health care to the poor and disadvantaged, in my 48 years of attending Mass, I have not heard any sermons on the matter, no second collections, no bulletin inserts; but now, only now, at the 11th hour, mere days before a historic vote, the Bishops rouse themselves to claim "we are always in favor of universal health care, but not this one"?
It seems all too similar to the opposing party, which has remained steadfastly silent on this issue during the decades when they held power, and have been implacably opposed to the notion, until just now, again at the 11th hour, they put up a hastily conceived and poorly cobbled together alternative, which is rightly derided as a cynical and insincere ploy.
In the spirit of Swift then, I put forward a modest proposal; Perhaps the Church can establish a chain of missions and clinics throught the impoverished and backward areas of America, staffed by Salesians, Poor Clair's, Oblates and the like, offering free medical care, just as they have done for centures throughout the 3rd World.
Perhaps each Sunday, we can hear long impassioned sermons begging for a second collection to help the suffering poor of Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi.
Perhaps all the newly ordained priests from Africa and the Phillipines can be sent to America to tend to their poorer brothers, helping lift them up out of misery and hopelessness.
Given that these cases are exceedingly rare, and would result in perhaps a few hundred abortions being funded, while in the meantime saving 45 THOUSAND lives and preventing the untold misery for millions more of bankruptcy, can the Catholic Bishops support this bill now?
I find it ironic that the same Church that shows such loving compassion towards the poor and suffering throughout the world can now, with blithe indifference, dismiss the pain and suffering of the tens of thousands who die each year due to lack of health care; instead we are treated to scolding about lifestyle changes, unhealthy eating habits, and such that could have been written by Dickens or Jonathan Swift, if only in bitter satire.
In a bit of gentle scolding, I might ask- where have the Bishops been in this debate? Political parties have been advocating universal health care for decades, and yet I can't recall the Catholic Bishops getting seriously involved- instead of being a loud and bold voice insisting on providing health care to the poor and disadvantaged, in my 48 years of attending Mass, I have not heard any sermons on the matter, no second collections, no bulletin inserts; but now, only now, at the 11th hour, mere days before a historic vote, the Bishops rouse themselves to claim "we are always in favor of universal health care, but not this one"?
It seems all too similar to the opposing party, which has remained steadfastly silent on this issue during the decades when they held power, and have been implacably opposed to the notion, until just now, again at the 11th hour, they put up a hastily conceived and poorly cobbled together alternative, which is rightly derided as a cynical and insincere ploy.
In the spirit of Swift then, I put forward a modest proposal; Perhaps the Church can establish a chain of missions and clinics throught the impoverished and backward areas of America, staffed by Salesians, Poor Clair's, Oblates and the like, offering free medical care, just as they have done for centures throughout the 3rd World.
Perhaps each Sunday, we can hear long impassioned sermons begging for a second collection to help the suffering poor of Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi.
Perhaps all the newly ordained priests from Africa and the Phillipines can be sent to America to tend to their poorer brothers, helping lift them up out of misery and hopelessness.
11.7.2009 | 2:07pm
Reason60 says:
I would like to amend my remarks in the previous post; I just now read that the Bishops have endorsed the bill, after assurance of the anti-abortion funding amendment.
I applaud them for this, and am proud of their actions.
I applaud them for this, and am proud of their actions.
11.7.2009 | 5:32pm
Suann M says:
Reason60, no offense meant, but have you been living abroad for the past 40 years? "Where have the bishops been in this debate?" They've been all over it when nobody -- and I mean nobody -- else was. The media have discovered this issue now that the Obama admin has made it a centerpiece of its agenda, but the Catholic Church in this country has been lobbying Congress on this exact issue for more than four decades. The Dems could have the Catholic vote in their pocket two months with very modest concessions. They were arrogant and greedy and thought they could steamrioll this through. Turns out that gravity applies even to this administration and even to a Congress totally dominated by the Democratic Party.
11.8.2009 | 12:12am
David Thomson says:
Americans must wake and realize that while there are some good Catholics---the institutional church is the enemy of Western Civilization. An occasional Michael Novak does not even begin to balance out the destruction. He and other Catholics like him are merely marginalized individuals. Nancy Pelosi and the late Ted Kennedy truly represent the Church of Rome. The Catholic Church in the United States is committed to imposing a socialist utopia. Time to take the gloves off. Americans were conned by the rhetoric of John Courtney Murray. At the very best, the majority of our nation's Catholics are "useful idiots" of the secularist elites. They may arguable mean well---but their heads are not on straight. We cannot trust such naive folks to do the right thing.
11.8.2009 | 12:43am
Me says:
1. Abortion is not covered by the bill.
2. The funding cut out of Medicare are aimed at SUBSIDIES, what about that do you people not understand? When the point of health care reform is to lower private insurance costs, a subsidy to lower private insurance costs for senior citizens is just REDUNDANT. It makes sense to cut costs on subsidies when that's the plan, no?
3. These bills proposed by the Democrats are deficit neutral or even help to reduce the federal deficit. If anything the bill that was recently proposed by Republicans would actually increase our deficit and would not control pricing in the long run for the insurance industry. Also, remember that a lot of the great things that we funded in the last REPUBLICAN administration (like the Iraq War, yeah right, and Medicare Plan D) were not paid for and added HUGELY to our deficit. At least the guys in charge now are taking an active role in trying to get this paid for.
4. The only way to get the "INDIVIDUAL" healthy and to promote a "healthy lifestyle" in an efficient way is to get the government to reduce the price to be insured so these obese kids and adults can actually SEE the doctor and are told DIRECTLY to lose weight/eat healthy. So government intervention may be needed. Does that make sense? For the record, under this bill government really does not take over the health industry, more like control the insurance industry, but you go into some countries/nations where health care is controlled by the government like France and the UK and they have some of the highest life expectancies in the world. Wonder why that is?????
5. I would love for immigrants to be covered by this bill, but it seems to me like we need to work on immigration reform before we start talking about whether or not they're going to be covered by this plan (it's kind of backwards to talk about insuring them before we discuss their citizenship status).
2. The funding cut out of Medicare are aimed at SUBSIDIES, what about that do you people not understand? When the point of health care reform is to lower private insurance costs, a subsidy to lower private insurance costs for senior citizens is just REDUNDANT. It makes sense to cut costs on subsidies when that's the plan, no?
3. These bills proposed by the Democrats are deficit neutral or even help to reduce the federal deficit. If anything the bill that was recently proposed by Republicans would actually increase our deficit and would not control pricing in the long run for the insurance industry. Also, remember that a lot of the great things that we funded in the last REPUBLICAN administration (like the Iraq War, yeah right, and Medicare Plan D) were not paid for and added HUGELY to our deficit. At least the guys in charge now are taking an active role in trying to get this paid for.
4. The only way to get the "INDIVIDUAL" healthy and to promote a "healthy lifestyle" in an efficient way is to get the government to reduce the price to be insured so these obese kids and adults can actually SEE the doctor and are told DIRECTLY to lose weight/eat healthy. So government intervention may be needed. Does that make sense? For the record, under this bill government really does not take over the health industry, more like control the insurance industry, but you go into some countries/nations where health care is controlled by the government like France and the UK and they have some of the highest life expectancies in the world. Wonder why that is?????
5. I would love for immigrants to be covered by this bill, but it seems to me like we need to work on immigration reform before we start talking about whether or not they're going to be covered by this plan (it's kind of backwards to talk about insuring them before we discuss their citizenship status).
11.8.2009 | 8:04pm
bob says:
Why don't we require the politicians to read each proposed law allowed in congress so they know what it says and be a requirement for voting on it.
If you don't think they are scheming what do you think of the attempt to take over the Catholic Church's finance in the state of Connecticut?
If you don't think they are scheming what do you think of the attempt to take over the Catholic Church's finance in the state of Connecticut?
11.8.2009 | 10:50pm
Jeanne says:
I think anyone who makes disparaging remarks on Catholicism should read some respectable books on its history and the direct positive influence it had on western civilization. Dan Brown doesn't count. BTW, one also should read some decent newspapers. If one did then one would realize that Pelosi did not get the positive photo op w/the pope that she was looking for nor did the Vatican issue any public condolences when Ted died. They certainly did when his sister passed away. Ted & Nancy are not part of the "in crowd" at the Vatican. As for the "useful idiots", they not only belong to Catholicism but to all monotheistic religions, Asian-based religions, & non-religions. Get it?
11.9.2009 | 12:10am
William Dolan says:
The late Teddy Kennedy hosted an event at his home in Hyannis Ma, the purpose of which was to advance unlimited abortion while avoiding the pesky political downside to a position opposed by the church. In attendance were many catholics including clergy. The bishop of Boston and Fall River were aware of this event.
This did not stop aforementioned bishops from giving communion to Teddy in public and providing private mass in his residence so he would not have to mingle with his less enlightened co-religionists at a real church.
What is a common catholic to make of this?
Bishops have come to this late and not truly united.
This did not stop aforementioned bishops from giving communion to Teddy in public and providing private mass in his residence so he would not have to mingle with his less enlightened co-religionists at a real church.
What is a common catholic to make of this?
Bishops have come to this late and not truly united.
11.9.2009 | 1:06am
Timothy says:
So, the bishop has made it clear: health care is generally important, but not important enough to support a sermon-unfriendly Washington boondoggle, and especially not important enough to recognize the closest thing to achievement of one of the spiritual polity's long held goals.
After all, it's not like gay marriage.
After all, it's not like gay marriage.
11.9.2009 | 12:16pm
Me says:
Ummmm, what does it matter if Ted/Nancy are blacklisted from the Vatican or you don't like them? So if a group of people came up with a solid plan to end world hunger, but someone in that group said some negative things about the Catholic church, you would oppose their idea???? That's pretty sad if so.
Yes, politicians should read the bill before voting on it, but that includes those opposing it, because it seems to me that they are just voting "no" for the shear sake of politics.
This is the closest we've come to achieving affordable health insurance for everyone and in my opinion it should not matter who's helping the efforts. The only thing that should matter is that the end result WILL be great (an again NO abortion in the bill and this bill is projected to actually help our deficit). There is NOTHING wrong with the government intervening with the health insurance industry and stopping them from exploiting us for multi billions of dollars. If you still think this is a "government take-over," which it is not, then at the very least I would trust an official I elected who's counting on my vote over a CEO for CIGNA or Blue Cross Blue Shield who's counting on his profit margins.
Yes, politicians should read the bill before voting on it, but that includes those opposing it, because it seems to me that they are just voting "no" for the shear sake of politics.
This is the closest we've come to achieving affordable health insurance for everyone and in my opinion it should not matter who's helping the efforts. The only thing that should matter is that the end result WILL be great (an again NO abortion in the bill and this bill is projected to actually help our deficit). There is NOTHING wrong with the government intervening with the health insurance industry and stopping them from exploiting us for multi billions of dollars. If you still think this is a "government take-over," which it is not, then at the very least I would trust an official I elected who's counting on my vote over a CEO for CIGNA or Blue Cross Blue Shield who's counting on his profit margins.
11.9.2009 | 1:44pm
Matt S says:
Amen Paul. Subsidiarity is a concept all but forgotten by the bishops.
Do the bishops support creating a health care program which is compulsory, and which imprisons any who choose not to partake in government health care?
Do the bishops support the idea of spending money governments don't have?
Do the bishops support government intrusion of all financial records for the purpose of commandeering funds from personal bank accounts of private citizens?
Do the bishops realize that this bill is being used to control every aspect of our lives claiming all things are health-related?
Do the bishops recognize the right to gainful employment? Do they realize this bill will kill thousands of businesses and destroy millions of jobs?
Any of you who believe that we are protected from paying for abortion have no understanding of politics. The amendment will be stripped in the Senate. Abortion is the worst part of the bill, but the entire thing was to get the single-issue pro-life voters on board.
Don't get me wrong, pro-life is great, but you must look at everything as whether it guarantees freedom (including freedom of the unborn), or limits freedom.
See everything, overlook a great deal, correct a little. -Pope John XXIII
Do the bishops support creating a health care program which is compulsory, and which imprisons any who choose not to partake in government health care?
Do the bishops support the idea of spending money governments don't have?
Do the bishops support government intrusion of all financial records for the purpose of commandeering funds from personal bank accounts of private citizens?
Do the bishops realize that this bill is being used to control every aspect of our lives claiming all things are health-related?
Do the bishops recognize the right to gainful employment? Do they realize this bill will kill thousands of businesses and destroy millions of jobs?
Any of you who believe that we are protected from paying for abortion have no understanding of politics. The amendment will be stripped in the Senate. Abortion is the worst part of the bill, but the entire thing was to get the single-issue pro-life voters on board.
Don't get me wrong, pro-life is great, but you must look at everything as whether it guarantees freedom (including freedom of the unborn), or limits freedom.
See everything, overlook a great deal, correct a little. -Pope John XXIII
11.9.2009 | 6:23pm
Me says:
What freedom are you talking about that's being inhibitted? I have no idea what you are talking about Matt S. Let me go by all your points one-by-one to make sure you get it:
1. It is irresponsible to be walking around uninsured because ultimately the tax payers will have to cover someone that can't afford to pay their hospital bill on their own, simple as that. We make sure auto insurance is enforced, because ultimately if someone collides with your vehicle that's uninsured, YOU will have to pay for it. Same principle with health insurance. I don't see an issue with making it mandatory especially if they're doing all they can to make it affordable.
2. As I've said a MILLION TIMES, we are spending money we DO have by cutting out Medicare subsidies (it's not going to kill old people, check my explanation below) and taxing those over a certain income bracket (making over $500,000). This bill is entirely paid for. And as I've said A MILLION TIMES the last administration paid for A LOT of unnecessary things (Medicare Plan D was necessary though I'll admit so kudos for that at least) with money we DID NOT have. Wonder how this deficit was created? Not Obama.
3rd point I have no idea what you're talking about so I'll skip it.
4. Ummm, you're sounding like Glen Beck with these conspiracy theories now. How exactly is the government intruding into non-health care related issues with this bill? I fail to understand that, and it can't be any worse than the wire-tappings done with the Patriot Act. Remember that? You must have a very selective memory.
5. What's the government really doing? They're lowering the prices of health insurance to save millions of lives. If the CEOs of these industries want to cut millions of jobs because they're not going to be able to afford a yacht this Christmas or get a huge bonus, then it seems to me like the blame falls on them and their own greed NOT the government. They are still going to be making a hefty income even with the antitrust exemption gone.
6. Ummm, who says it'll be stripped in the Senate? You (because you're the expert on all things politics)? In my opinion, the Democrats in the Senate are smart enough to realize (as they were in the House) that including abortion coverage in the bill will just deter the moderate votes they need to pass it.
7. Again, I don't know what freedoms you're talking about exactly. The whole point of it being called the public OPTION, is that it's an OPTION, meaning you would have the FREEDOM of choosing whether you want the government plan or the private plan. And if you say that private plans cannot compete with a government one, at the beginning of it's enactment the public option will actually be slightly more expensive than the private insurance rate, and if the prive insurance industry really wants to compete then they better start adding procedures/tests to cover rather than trying to be stingy and increase their profit margins (so there goes your competition).
1. It is irresponsible to be walking around uninsured because ultimately the tax payers will have to cover someone that can't afford to pay their hospital bill on their own, simple as that. We make sure auto insurance is enforced, because ultimately if someone collides with your vehicle that's uninsured, YOU will have to pay for it. Same principle with health insurance. I don't see an issue with making it mandatory especially if they're doing all they can to make it affordable.
2. As I've said a MILLION TIMES, we are spending money we DO have by cutting out Medicare subsidies (it's not going to kill old people, check my explanation below) and taxing those over a certain income bracket (making over $500,000). This bill is entirely paid for. And as I've said A MILLION TIMES the last administration paid for A LOT of unnecessary things (Medicare Plan D was necessary though I'll admit so kudos for that at least) with money we DID NOT have. Wonder how this deficit was created? Not Obama.
3rd point I have no idea what you're talking about so I'll skip it.
4. Ummm, you're sounding like Glen Beck with these conspiracy theories now. How exactly is the government intruding into non-health care related issues with this bill? I fail to understand that, and it can't be any worse than the wire-tappings done with the Patriot Act. Remember that? You must have a very selective memory.
5. What's the government really doing? They're lowering the prices of health insurance to save millions of lives. If the CEOs of these industries want to cut millions of jobs because they're not going to be able to afford a yacht this Christmas or get a huge bonus, then it seems to me like the blame falls on them and their own greed NOT the government. They are still going to be making a hefty income even with the antitrust exemption gone.
6. Ummm, who says it'll be stripped in the Senate? You (because you're the expert on all things politics)? In my opinion, the Democrats in the Senate are smart enough to realize (as they were in the House) that including abortion coverage in the bill will just deter the moderate votes they need to pass it.
7. Again, I don't know what freedoms you're talking about exactly. The whole point of it being called the public OPTION, is that it's an OPTION, meaning you would have the FREEDOM of choosing whether you want the government plan or the private plan. And if you say that private plans cannot compete with a government one, at the beginning of it's enactment the public option will actually be slightly more expensive than the private insurance rate, and if the prive insurance industry really wants to compete then they better start adding procedures/tests to cover rather than trying to be stingy and increase their profit margins (so there goes your competition).
11.10.2009 | 4:02pm
Tom says:
If Government runs Health Care, then it would ultimately be corrupted to serve
ambitious politicians - not patients. All Government programs have this feature.
It is immoral for Government to make medical decisions for individuals. It is an
affront to our personal freedom.
Some argue that access to free health care would provide better security and
equality to U.S. citizens. If this were true, would it be worth sacrificing our
freedom? I don't believe so.
We should work to reform health care through the free market system - the
system that has done a good job up to this point. To throw this out completely
and attempt a $ 1.2 trillion experiment is irresponsible, arrogent, and extreemely threatening to the economy.
Abortion is the willful killing of our most vulnerable citizens. Why should all
Americans be forced to fund such an act?
ambitious politicians - not patients. All Government programs have this feature.
It is immoral for Government to make medical decisions for individuals. It is an
affront to our personal freedom.
Some argue that access to free health care would provide better security and
equality to U.S. citizens. If this were true, would it be worth sacrificing our
freedom? I don't believe so.
We should work to reform health care through the free market system - the
system that has done a good job up to this point. To throw this out completely
and attempt a $ 1.2 trillion experiment is irresponsible, arrogent, and extreemely threatening to the economy.
Abortion is the willful killing of our most vulnerable citizens. Why should all
Americans be forced to fund such an act?
11.10.2009 | 8:26pm
IdaKnow says:
Tom, I seriously do not know why you would choose to hold the health insurancy industry leaders (who we know nothing about, but it is clear they only have money on their mind) over ELECTED officials (I'll admit we don't know everything about them and they're not perfect, but if we don't like them we can just vote for someone else, no)? Your mentality about "freedom" just sounds warped. Just because you're being fed propaganda day-in-day-out by fox news and conservative media that the government is "corrupt" and "taking over your life" does not mean it's true and I fail to see how they're doing that with this bill. It seems to me that our health care system is broken and making us head towards bankruptcy and all the current administration wants to do is fix it so we don't have yet another thing to worry about than what's already on our plate (this bill will help reduce the deficit according to the CBO). You also already have to pay for people that can't afford to pay their hospital bills (and at a higher price with your taxes), so what's the issue with covering them? It can only help you in terms of taxes because only those making over a certain income will now be taxed to pay for them.
If anything the bad guys are the conservatives/health insurance leaders that will do/spend anything to make sure that they remain at the top of the income bracket and save a dollar, even if it comes at the expense of human lives. Again, your ideas on what is "good" seems backwards to me.
Again, if the public option passes and you don't want it, then you DON'T HAVE TO GET IT. The government is not holding a gun to your head requiring you to get its insurance plan.
This "free market" system that you think will just work SO WELL was basically what the insurance industry had the last 8 years (tax breaks for these CEO's remember)? How well did that turn out? Obviously not well at all because prices continue to sky-rocket and people are still being denied insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions or even dropped from their current coverage. Tests/procedures are also still severely limited, so if you ever need a life-saving bone marrow transplant in the future to save your life with our current system, guess what, the heads will tell you you're not getting one. Yeah I JUST LOVE THAT FREEDOM that our current system gives us....
And again, can someone please explain to me what "freedom" we're losing with providing health care insurance to everyone? I'd really love to know, but no one has come up with anything really. If you're worried about how the government plan will handle medical decisions, they cannot be any worse than how the health insurance industry is already running it in my opinion. It can only improve. End of life decisions (another issue I've been hearing about) have to be made by somebody, and I'd rather it be made by someone who relies on our vote rather than someone who cares about how much money they make off of me. AND AGAIN IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET IT.
And again ABORTIONS WILL NOT BE COVERED. It's written clear as daylight in the bill (Stupak Amendment). READ IT yourself for the love of God. I'm tired of reiterating this point. If you're STILL being told that abortions are covered, you're being lied to.
If anything the bad guys are the conservatives/health insurance leaders that will do/spend anything to make sure that they remain at the top of the income bracket and save a dollar, even if it comes at the expense of human lives. Again, your ideas on what is "good" seems backwards to me.
Again, if the public option passes and you don't want it, then you DON'T HAVE TO GET IT. The government is not holding a gun to your head requiring you to get its insurance plan.
This "free market" system that you think will just work SO WELL was basically what the insurance industry had the last 8 years (tax breaks for these CEO's remember)? How well did that turn out? Obviously not well at all because prices continue to sky-rocket and people are still being denied insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions or even dropped from their current coverage. Tests/procedures are also still severely limited, so if you ever need a life-saving bone marrow transplant in the future to save your life with our current system, guess what, the heads will tell you you're not getting one. Yeah I JUST LOVE THAT FREEDOM that our current system gives us....
And again, can someone please explain to me what "freedom" we're losing with providing health care insurance to everyone? I'd really love to know, but no one has come up with anything really. If you're worried about how the government plan will handle medical decisions, they cannot be any worse than how the health insurance industry is already running it in my opinion. It can only improve. End of life decisions (another issue I've been hearing about) have to be made by somebody, and I'd rather it be made by someone who relies on our vote rather than someone who cares about how much money they make off of me. AND AGAIN IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET IT.
And again ABORTIONS WILL NOT BE COVERED. It's written clear as daylight in the bill (Stupak Amendment). READ IT yourself for the love of God. I'm tired of reiterating this point. If you're STILL being told that abortions are covered, you're being lied to.
11.12.2009 | 4:52pm
Greg Miller says:
IdaKnow, your post is simply amazing in its contradictions and errors. I've never seen it's like before.
In one sentence you speak about "the health insurance industry leaders (who we know nothing about, but it is clear they only have money on their mind)". Somehow, you're so logically inconsistent as to be able to claim "we know nothing about (health insurance leaders)" and in the very next breath claim you DO know "they only have money on their mind". Wow. That takes stunning ignorance--which you amply display in the remainder of your post.
You ask, "can someone please explain to me what "freedom" we're losing with providing health care insurance to everyone? I'd really love to know, but no one has come up with anything really."
Wrong again, and here's an answer to your question...If you'd bothered to read the bills, you'd find some interesting little golden nuggets. In H.R. 3962, the uninsured are required to pay an extra income tax — "2.5% of adjusted gross income above the filing threshold, capped at the national average premium". In layman's terms, this means a family of four that makes $88,000 or more per year is going to pay an additional income tax ranging from 1.5% to 12%. This is a tax on low and moderate income Americans, and is in addition to that “surtax” on higher incomes ($200,000+) ranging up to 5.4%.
Furthermore, in what is being called the "Employer Mandate", that same bill adds a new 8% payroll tax on employers who don’t cover specified percentages of their employees’ health insurance. H.R. 3962 specifically says that the tax paid by the employer “shall not be applied against the premium of the employee.”
In other words, it creates a disincentive for business owners to provide insurance for their employees. My father's small business used to cover the full cost of insurance (now it covers 50%). He made the switch from full coverage to half in 2005, when the cost to provide medical insurance for one of his fourteen employees came to $874/month.
Suppose he had continued full coverage. In 2007, healthcare costs rose 6.1%. Based on that rate, that employee's annual health insurance cost in 2009 would have been $13,299. Let's hypothetically suppose his salary was equal to the pay of the average government employee (around $72,000 according to CNN). An 8% payroll tax on $72,000 is only $5760--not even equal to the $6649 the company currently pays to cover half his insurance premium.
Your wonderful government has just made it MORE affordable to stop providing insurance completely than to pay the newly mandated tax. Where does that leave the employee? FORCED to buy the government plan (if my dad drops coverage). So you're also wrong about getting to keep private insurance. The politicians are creating an environment that will make you dependent on THEM.
What is given rather than earned can ALWAYS be taken away. A fact that is equally true with the anti-abortion Stupak Amendment. When that bill goes to the Senate for voting, it's possible--even likely--it will be removed.
In one sentence you speak about "the health insurance industry leaders (who we know nothing about, but it is clear they only have money on their mind)". Somehow, you're so logically inconsistent as to be able to claim "we know nothing about (health insurance leaders)" and in the very next breath claim you DO know "they only have money on their mind". Wow. That takes stunning ignorance--which you amply display in the remainder of your post.
You ask, "can someone please explain to me what "freedom" we're losing with providing health care insurance to everyone? I'd really love to know, but no one has come up with anything really."
Wrong again, and here's an answer to your question...If you'd bothered to read the bills, you'd find some interesting little golden nuggets. In H.R. 3962, the uninsured are required to pay an extra income tax — "2.5% of adjusted gross income above the filing threshold, capped at the national average premium". In layman's terms, this means a family of four that makes $88,000 or more per year is going to pay an additional income tax ranging from 1.5% to 12%. This is a tax on low and moderate income Americans, and is in addition to that “surtax” on higher incomes ($200,000+) ranging up to 5.4%.
Furthermore, in what is being called the "Employer Mandate", that same bill adds a new 8% payroll tax on employers who don’t cover specified percentages of their employees’ health insurance. H.R. 3962 specifically says that the tax paid by the employer “shall not be applied against the premium of the employee.”
In other words, it creates a disincentive for business owners to provide insurance for their employees. My father's small business used to cover the full cost of insurance (now it covers 50%). He made the switch from full coverage to half in 2005, when the cost to provide medical insurance for one of his fourteen employees came to $874/month.
Suppose he had continued full coverage. In 2007, healthcare costs rose 6.1%. Based on that rate, that employee's annual health insurance cost in 2009 would have been $13,299. Let's hypothetically suppose his salary was equal to the pay of the average government employee (around $72,000 according to CNN). An 8% payroll tax on $72,000 is only $5760--not even equal to the $6649 the company currently pays to cover half his insurance premium.
Your wonderful government has just made it MORE affordable to stop providing insurance completely than to pay the newly mandated tax. Where does that leave the employee? FORCED to buy the government plan (if my dad drops coverage). So you're also wrong about getting to keep private insurance. The politicians are creating an environment that will make you dependent on THEM.
What is given rather than earned can ALWAYS be taken away. A fact that is equally true with the anti-abortion Stupak Amendment. When that bill goes to the Senate for voting, it's possible--even likely--it will be removed.
11.13.2009 | 2:08am
Ida Know says:
I don't know anything about these health insurance CEO's except that they are about the money. Rephrased that, Greg Miller, happy? Disagree? Do you think that the CEOs are actually looking out for everyone's well-being. If so then LOL. They've already spent sooooooo much money lobbying to stop health care reform, shouldn't that money have gone to actually cover their customers? Just saying.....
The key word in your little "nugget" is UNINSURED. Meaning if you don't want to pay the tax, then get some INSURANCE. Seems pretty simple and understandable, doesn't it? I can deal with people making over $200,000 having to pay a 5.4% tax. I'm pretty sure the gates of hell aren't going to open because the rich are being taxed......
You basically argued FOR health care reform when you said your dad had to cut insurance coverage in half because of how expensive it was getting, so THANKS for the help. And you should be thrilled your dad would actually save money with this bill with the government plan, and that WITH IT his employees will get FULL coverage rather than the HALF that was originally offerred by your father (for a cheaper cost too). But of course, you would not be thrilled about people getting full coverage for much less because Fox and Friends are telling you that you should be pissed about it and that the government is "taking over." Am I right, or am I right? For the record, we have a checks and balances system in our government for a reason, so it is practically impossible for someone to just have a full fledged "communist takeover" ala Mao Zedong or Lenin. Your fear is quite irrational.
The key word in your little "nugget" is UNINSURED. Meaning if you don't want to pay the tax, then get some INSURANCE. Seems pretty simple and understandable, doesn't it? I can deal with people making over $200,000 having to pay a 5.4% tax. I'm pretty sure the gates of hell aren't going to open because the rich are being taxed......
You basically argued FOR health care reform when you said your dad had to cut insurance coverage in half because of how expensive it was getting, so THANKS for the help. And you should be thrilled your dad would actually save money with this bill with the government plan, and that WITH IT his employees will get FULL coverage rather than the HALF that was originally offerred by your father (for a cheaper cost too). But of course, you would not be thrilled about people getting full coverage for much less because Fox and Friends are telling you that you should be pissed about it and that the government is "taking over." Am I right, or am I right? For the record, we have a checks and balances system in our government for a reason, so it is practically impossible for someone to just have a full fledged "communist takeover" ala Mao Zedong or Lenin. Your fear is quite irrational.
11.13.2009 | 2:12am
IdaKnow says:
Oh and for the record, your whole abortion argument is a lot of MAYBES. I know for a FACT that abortion is currently not covered in this bill, so talk to me when you yourself have some FACTS and not SPECULATION, otherwise you're just adding baseless fears (just like Sarah Palin with these "death panels").
11.18.2009 | 2:09pm
Greg Miller says:
Ida, Ida, Ida...more sloppy thinking on your part. Of course there needs to be healthcare reform. You make a great error, however, in assuming that the ONLY way to conduct that reform is to institute a system of government insurance.
See my comment in this discussion (5th from the bottom) for clarification.
As for your statement about "FACTS rather than SPECULATION"...I've provided information straight from the bill itself, while you have yet to provide any FACTS supporting your claims as to the greed of healthcare CEOS. You've mentioned it twice, but without providing ANY figures whatsoever. Interesting.
Nice try with the ad hominem attacks and the attempts to divert attention from my points by mentioning "Fox and Friends". Don't have cable, don't watch them. Seems you know more about them than I. Who's fearful again? Seems to me like you're fearful of Fox.
My experience with "government healthcare" is more "hands on". I have family members who served in every branch of the military except the Coast Guard. I've seen how shoddy this "full coverage for less" truly is. There is a reason my relatives would rather pay for "partial coverage" through their employers rather than depend on the "free coverage" through the VA.
I also saw the near criminal negligence of government healthcare when I did volunteer work at Truman Restorative Center (now closed--"budget overruns") in St. Louis Missouri.
Care to try again :)?
See my comment in this discussion (5th from the bottom) for clarification.
As for your statement about "FACTS rather than SPECULATION"...I've provided information straight from the bill itself, while you have yet to provide any FACTS supporting your claims as to the greed of healthcare CEOS. You've mentioned it twice, but without providing ANY figures whatsoever. Interesting.
Nice try with the ad hominem attacks and the attempts to divert attention from my points by mentioning "Fox and Friends". Don't have cable, don't watch them. Seems you know more about them than I. Who's fearful again? Seems to me like you're fearful of Fox.
My experience with "government healthcare" is more "hands on". I have family members who served in every branch of the military except the Coast Guard. I've seen how shoddy this "full coverage for less" truly is. There is a reason my relatives would rather pay for "partial coverage" through their employers rather than depend on the "free coverage" through the VA.
I also saw the near criminal negligence of government healthcare when I did volunteer work at Truman Restorative Center (now closed--"budget overruns") in St. Louis Missouri.
Care to try again :)?
11.20.2009 | 12:48am
IdaKnow says:
Oooooooh, I was just waiting for the day you would return Greg. :)
Here's the facts:
CEO profits/greed. They make an obscene amount of money, wouldn't you say? Not that there's anything wrong with being rich, but when you drop people left and right or refuse to cover them so that you can have an extra $1,000,000 for a private jet (I read an article on how Angela Braly owns one), then I find that a tad bit disgusting: http://sickforprofit.com/ceos/
Here's a study that shows how many people die each year from not having insurance or being dropped by their provider: http://www.harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-lack-health-coverage
Yeah, I am fearful of Fox to be quite honest because they're turning a chunk of our nation into a radical group of angry rednecks with shotguns. Who would not be fearful of that?
Okay, then you and I are on the same page on bringing reform, but who says this system will be like the VA? None of the bills proposed are saying that the there will be government doctors or hospitals? The most proposed is that there will be a government insurance plan along with the private insurance plans (I guess as close as you can compare it to is an Australian health care system that also has a public option mixed with private). Australia's system fares quite well, if you're wondering, as even nations with government plans or single payer plans (all are at the top for cancer and heart disease surviveability statistics) and pay LESS than our current system as is. How do you propose then, excluding a government plan, to bring about lowering rates/costs? Making this into a "free market" system is essentially what these insurance companies had for the last 8 years and rates have skyrocketed 130%: http://money.blogs.time.com/2009/09/16/health-insurance-premiums-up-131-in-last-ten-years/
So again, if no government plan, and if "free market" hasn't worked in the last 8 years, then what do you propose be done about this then? I'm not against other ideas, it's just I haven't heard ANY from the opposition yet.
Here's the facts:
CEO profits/greed. They make an obscene amount of money, wouldn't you say? Not that there's anything wrong with being rich, but when you drop people left and right or refuse to cover them so that you can have an extra $1,000,000 for a private jet (I read an article on how Angela Braly owns one), then I find that a tad bit disgusting: http://sickforprofit.com/ceos/
Here's a study that shows how many people die each year from not having insurance or being dropped by their provider: http://www.harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-lack-health-coverage
Yeah, I am fearful of Fox to be quite honest because they're turning a chunk of our nation into a radical group of angry rednecks with shotguns. Who would not be fearful of that?
Okay, then you and I are on the same page on bringing reform, but who says this system will be like the VA? None of the bills proposed are saying that the there will be government doctors or hospitals? The most proposed is that there will be a government insurance plan along with the private insurance plans (I guess as close as you can compare it to is an Australian health care system that also has a public option mixed with private). Australia's system fares quite well, if you're wondering, as even nations with government plans or single payer plans (all are at the top for cancer and heart disease surviveability statistics) and pay LESS than our current system as is. How do you propose then, excluding a government plan, to bring about lowering rates/costs? Making this into a "free market" system is essentially what these insurance companies had for the last 8 years and rates have skyrocketed 130%: http://money.blogs.time.com/2009/09/16/health-insurance-premiums-up-131-in-last-ten-years/
So again, if no government plan, and if "free market" hasn't worked in the last 8 years, then what do you propose be done about this then? I'm not against other ideas, it's just I haven't heard ANY from the opposition yet.