I find this an odd article. It seems more like an op-ed screed than an informative, analytical but lively written piece like the ones I usually find in this place. It also seems disingenuous to suggest that Republicans are as interested in health-care reform as Democrats. Republican Administrations or Congresses have never made health-care a priority as far as I remember.

In a modern world filled with suffering and despair, we can always count on this caring prelate to instruct us on how to vote.

Chaput is where it's at. I have faith in the Church of the next 50 years with people like him speaking out!

One commentator states:
"In a modern world filled with suffering and despair, we can always count on this caring prelate to instruct us on how to vote."

A second asserts:
"I find this an odd article. It seems more like an op-ed screed than an informative, analytical but lively written piece like the ones I usually find in this place. It also seems disingenuous to suggest that Republicans are as interested in health-care reform as Democrats. Republican Administrations or Congresses have never made health-care a priority as far as I remember."

In neither case is the commentator refuting or offering counter-arguments to the bishop's case. They are, in fact, assessing in one case, his style, and another case, his heart.

If the archbishop is wrong, refute his case. Trying to find a character-flaw, like patriotism, is the last refuge to which an advocate without argument clings (if I may borrow a sentiment from Dr. Johnson).

The health care debate is not about which advocates are the sorts of people you would like to have in your focus group. Remember, "Kumbaya" is not only a wretched song, it's a wretched means by which to assess another's policy proposals.

Anthony,

Your disparagement of the Archbishop's claim that Republicans too are concerned with healthcare simply assumes, or so it seems to me, that concern for healthcare simply is identical with a desire or platform that aims at passing a law or establishing a national policy (of some sort or other) or centralizing (to some degree) the administration of healthcare. In other words, you seem to conflate healthcare policy with healthcare provision. But this conflation commits the fallacy of equivocation. It is simply not the case that healthcare provision and healthcare policy are the same thing. The question is really about whether the best way to provide the best coverage for the most people is through public or private provision. Most conservative Republicans think private provision leads, over the long term, to better coverage for more people. They think public provision is incentive incompatible in such a way that, on the one hand, the quality of care will decrease, and, on the other, moral hazard will lead to increasing costs that eventually result healthcare provision for fewer rather than more--at that point, the government rather than the market will make the decisions as to who gets what treatment. And, as they see it, government isn't suited to make such decisions. Moreover, there is the question of federalism and the reason for having a federal arrangement of authority in an extended republic such as ours--needs vary widely across regions. There is a good deal of sense of letting regions (which we call states) determine what best accords with their particular needs--which will lead to different policies (some will stay with market provision, others will go with government provisions, among those that go with public provision, there will be varying levels and kinds). Many Republicans think the principle of federalism should be respected in these debates and that national policy fails to respect federalism, the notion of a government of only delegated powers, and the reality that needs vary from place to place and that state and local governments should therefore be the locus of healthcare policy. Finally, many Republicans support real healthcare reforms that are rather more moderate and incremental in nature. And, in fact, our legislative process at the national level is, as a matter of design, incremental in nature. One massive policy dealing with 1/6th of our economy seems to them like a tremendous risk--the costs of which, all acknowledge, are very high if the proposed solution doesn't work. It's impossible to know with much certainty that the Obama plan will work. In light of the uncertainty of the future and the high cost of the plan, an incremental approach seems entirely reasonable. So there are many different Republican positions and plans, none of which belie unconcern about healthcare and all of which are compatible with concern to expand coverage to as many as possible. You will no doubt suggest that Republican "solutions" are insincere and merely pretext for defending the status quo. But there's no evidence for that proposition. There never could be. Only God can discern motives. So let's set motives aside and stick to the argument. And let us be as generous as possible towards those with whom we sincerely disagree--as you and I no doubt do.

Archbishop Chaput is primarily concerned about conscience protections for Catholic physicians, nurses, and health care assistants, protections which would prevent their being forced to participate in medical procedures which take innocent human lives, and about protection from taxation in support of abortion. Why is this seen as more political or as instruction "on how to vote" than advice from a clergyman on, say, civil rights or a fair minimum wage? Alt Archbishop Chaput, like "Richard", is concerned about suffering and despair and is working tirelessly to relieve these conditions for all people - the unborn, medical professionals, and those who offer equally valid but different plans for health care reform included. Republicans Wyden-Bennett and Rep. Paul Ryan offer realistic, fiscally responsible health care reform plans which could be considered is bi-partisanship were truly valued by this administration.

The author of this article is on target. Libs have always rejected anything from the church. The HC bill is flawed and would be bad law.
My medical care should be between me and my doctor(s).. I want the government to stay out of health care and obey our nations constitution.

It seems to me that the word "abortion" has long since lost the bulk of the emotional horror that it should convey. What might help is a change in language so that the "discussion" is continued in more potent terms.

Now abortion is definitely the killing of one human being by another. (If it isn't then the one making that claim has the absolute burden of proof of why that is not a human being which has been killed in the abortion.) This, by any reasonable standard, is *homicide*. Now if "homicidal" means having the tendency to homicide then very clearly we have a homicidal president and many congressional leaders who are also homicidal. It's an ugly word and cannot be made non-ugly, but it is accurate.

Thus those who advocate abortion must be asked why they wish to be homicidal. In the present case we have a thinly disguised homicidal bill which is being promoted as "health care". Isn't this an example of what has been called elsewhere as "the big lie"?

The Senate proposal for health reform is likely to become law - or not - as the result of a vote scheduled for later this week. What could possibly be more relevant than a clear explanation of the basis for the position of the Church to inform our views at this critical moment? A war of words on the appropriate structure of health reform has occupied a prominent place in public forums for much of the past year. The time has passed for a debate over the specifics of the bill. What matters this week is the vote of our representatives in Congress. We, as citizens and Catholics, need to make our views known in the way that will exert the most influence on this process.

Here, then, is a substantive critique of Archbishop Chaput's column: It is thin in explaining exactly why the existing health care bills are bad, and, more fundamentally, in laying out exactly what the Bishops' agenda in regard to health reform involves. The only issue that is really mentioned in this connection is abortion (and also immigrants - in passing). I am also led to wonder with some scepticism whether there exists the kind of consensus among all the bishops regarding an appropriate health care bill that this blog entry implies.

None of the other issues that have made health care reform the object of so much contention in the public square are in any way addressed by Archbishop Chaput - in particular, the question of whether the legislation ought to involve a "public option" or not, or whether it ought to contain provisions mandating the purchase of health care by all Americans under the penalty of hefty fines.

And while we're at it, it would have been nice to see some prophetical denunciations of the greed and avarice of some of the principal interest groups shaping the legislation behind closed doors - interest groups that have rendered the cost of health care insanely high here in the US in recent decades.

The abortion and conscience clause issues should probably receive the lion's share of attention from the Catholic bishops, but it's important, I think, to stress with Archbishop Chaput that the self-identified "Catholic" groups supporting socialized medicine do indeed constitute a grave scandal.

The real issue underlying the health care "debate" and deliberately distorted or obscured by mendacious Democrats and loose-witted Republicans alike is the question of what kind of social order we want. Do we want a polity of responsible and free citizens, or do we want a regime of dependent and passive subjects tied to the illusion of security without liberty? The repression of serious debate by those who are pushing for a socialized system is an index on their real intentions. They want power for themselves and those they identify as belonging to their busybody class.

One may argue about how American such a position is, inasmuch as "progressivism" has rather a lengthy pedigree in American political history. But there can be no serious doubt that the position is profoundly at variance with the social principle of subsidiarity, with the moral principles of personal responsibility and the defense of life, and therefore with the most basic teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. One cannot support this travesty of "reform" and still be Catholic. To do so would incur excommunication latae sententiae--and I regret that, by and large, the bishops do not seem to be fulfilling their pastoral duties by making this point publicly explicit to the relevant politicians who publicly identify themselves as Catholic, and to Catholics who support those politicians.

I think it evident that the way we provide health-care today is wretched (to use someone else's term--and that "kumbaya" got in here is wretched in itself); for far too many people, losing a job means losing health-care or paying a terrible price for it.

Please know that I am guilty of no fallacy. I think the private vs. public stance on this issue is far too simplistic; I also know that Republican presidents and congresses have done little to advance the coverage of the many Americans currently uncovered. So, confronted with these two facts, I conclude that there is not a moral equivalence on the issue. This is not cardiognosis. Let me say for the record that I strongly suspect some Republicans are sincere in their desire for an overhauled health-care system that truly serves the poor, the immigrant, and the wretched of the earth. Indeed, I have plenty of friends who are closer to Milton Friedman than to Arthur Okun or Paul Krugman. I simply have not seen evidence of the Republican Party making this a priority when they have a majority in Congress or the Presidency itself. I am responding to external evidence, not to putative motives, cynical or otherwise. While the disquisition on federalism is appreciated, and perhaps sufficiently succinct to use in my classroom, I assure you it was also unnecessary.

Of course we don't know "with much certainty" (I had thought until now that "certainty" was an either-or proposition)-- that the Obama plan will work. Frankly, I don't know with certainty that I will awake to tomorrow's version of weather (today's NJ weather was not much worth the waking, I can tell you!); as to the first comment, I simply note that the Archbishop did not make a "case"; That is precisely the reason for my objection. Had he made a case, a counter-argument would have been, indeed, appropriate. What he does is assert. This too points to the issue of generosity. Evidently, I am thought ungenerous with respect to Archbishop Chaput's comments. I must say, however, that his essay did not appear generous in the least. For instance, he puts Catholic in quotation marks to suggest, what? Does he mean to say that those who do not share his position on the health care bill are not genuine Catholics, but only "Catholics"? That seems rough to me. Indeed, there is disagreement, as I understand it, on whether the Senate bill supports state funding for abortion; my understanding is that it does not, but clearly the Bishop's is otherwise. I hope this does not make me, "Catholic." I am following this issue, and certainly the Bishop's position will be on my mind as I sift further (so please do not think I fail to take the issue seriously).

I am afraid that I find myself between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, Francis Beckwith suggests I am too fond of 1970's hippie-dippie, "why can't we all just get along" feeling, and on the other hand, I am being too combative or spiritually presumptuous (Paul)--ok, perhaps both, but with different objects in each (too combative with respect to Archbishop Chaput, too hippie-dippie with respect to my general sentiment?). Frankly, it seems I may have been treated ungenerously.

Anthony, unless I'm mistaken, either Nixon (gasp) or Ford actually pressed a pretty good health care reform approach during his tenure, and it was within reach of passing, lo these many years ago. But Ted Kennedy helped kill it because it wasn't a Democratic Party effort. In any case, assuming that Republicans all secretly want a troglodyte approach to social policy is a little over the top. Also unconnected to reality.

I shall happily leave the Catholic comments to the Archbishop and other Catholics. But I do want to make a comment about the Republicans.

Never, to the best of my knowledge, has the Republican Conference in either the Senate or the House of Representatives ever proposed a plan that would essentially extend health insurance to all American citizens. Yes, they have made recommendations that might reduce cost safely (such as tort reform). But to say "Yes, we must abolish a situation in which 30 million of us have no, zero, health insurance, and therefore are subject to illnesses, even debilitating or lethal ones"-that has been and still is beyond their imagination or desire.

Go to amazon.com and look up T.R.Reid's book on health insurance around the world. Buy it and read it. (For a quick overview, look up his PBS show on the same topic through Google.) We should be ashamed of ourselves. Whether we choose an all-private insurance vehicle (such as Switzerland and Germany), and all-governmental one, or a mixed one, there is a better way than we have now.

I believe in the 1990's Taiwan decided that it was prosperous enough to be able to afford the moral duty to provide universal health insurance to its citizens. It did so.

We are no less prosperous, and should be able to figure out a way to do so as well.

In terms of Catholic prudential practice (at which non-Catholics may have something useful to say), rather than Catholic doctrine, about which we should normally stay silent, I think that the Catholic Church has missed a rare opportunity.

The Church is, of course, one of the world's largest providers of health services, operating in many countries and in many cultures. It could have added significantly to the doctrinally-based concerns cited by Archbishop Chaput by presenting a "commission-like" report analyzing the many different international frameworks of universal care, their pluses and their minuses, as a sober and clear-minded presentation as to the many different ways of accomplishing this goal.

I don't think that any other institution could have done so as well on a substantially world-wide basis as the Catholic Church.

We are all the poorer for the lack of such an effort.

Rabbi Chaim Frazer

Dear Paul and Francis Beckwith,

I will be brief as I have formerly submitted a lengthy comment that was perhaps considered unpublishable (I didn't think it was that bad). First, let me assure you that I was not engaged in cardiognosis. I stated what I believe to be objectively the case, namely, that when Republicans have had the White House or a majority in Congress, health care simply was not an issue of sufficient interest to motivate what I see as necessary changes across the country. How they motivate these changes is entirely up to them, in my view. If they choose Milton Friedman or Hayek or E.F. Schumacher over Arthur Okun or Krugman, so be it. I was not in need of a lecture on federalism, I assure you. But it was a nice presentation, and so I may copy and paste for students at some point if you don't mind. Near the end of your discourse, you suppose what I "would say," contradict what I did not say, and then oddly throw in spiritual counsel based upon what I did not do and in relation to a person whom you do not know.

Mr. Beckwith, You are of course correct that a "case," and by that I take you to mean "argument," deserves a counter-argument rather than a comment on style. My comment was not on style. My comment, to put it directly, is that the Bishop presented no argument. In short, the letter was a series of assertions. So, you are correct that I did not refute his case. And that is precisely because I do not think he made one.

I don't even get to the point of examining the progressives' socialized medicine proposal. Current entitlements of Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid currently have 100 Trillion dollars worth of unfunded liabilities. Annual spending by Washington Political Class fat cats is 2 Trillion dollars more than its revenues. The Govt needs to stop spending our tax dollars. Fat Cat Washington politicians and massive, bloated Fed Govt bureaucracies should never be allowed anywhere near our HC system.

Pope Benedict writes: “The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person - every person -needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. … In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live ‘by bread alone’ (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3) - a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human.” (Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est #28)

“By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous...... increase in spending.” (Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus #48)

One problem here is that the word "abortion" has lost most of the moral and emotional horror that it once and still should carry. Now if "homicide" is any killing of one human being by another, then any abortion is quite obviously a homicide. (If someone claims that it is not, then they have the absolute burden of proof that it is not a human being which is killed in an abortion.)

Clearly, then we have a President and a Democratic congressional leadership who are homicide advocates, and they should be called on to answer as to why they are such homicide promoters.

The same should be asked of each individual who also advocates a "woman's right to choose (homicide)".

The current bill before the Congress is but a thinly disguised attempt to further embed homicide of the unborn into the positive law of the land - FOCA by stealth, piece by piece.

There are noble attempts to intelligently discuss the health care issue here. The good archbishop carved out the direction. This forum, to me, is woefully inadequate to cover that territory. But the archbishop's agenda is simple. He opposes abortion and will literally do and say anything to end it. To me, the real agenda is control; that is control over a flock he is losing. One can debate that reality ad nauseam, but the fact remains. So many here are on board with the fundamental message and are the archbishop's loyal minions. Bully.

I am against any public funding in any form for abortion. I am not in favor of taking down the process, the government to end abortion. It will remain in some form and there should be some kind of balance. In the end that issue is about some very fundamental and profound questions about life, poverty, cultural standards, women and their role in this world, health and also, finally, assault and crime. I find it reprehensible for folks to glibly assert some moral certainty that varies from most thoughtful folks. You can check the polls.

I despise abortion.
I would not kill an abortion provider or destroy his or her place of work.
Now it seems possible that 216 Democrats, sorry but thats what they are, are prepared to force me to pay for this sin, implicate me, against my will, daily in the thousands.
This is different. I have sat on the sidelines while heros have bourne witness.
This is worth rethinking.
Mark down the 216 names.
Study and pray.

Act in haste repent at leisure.Rushed legislation is more likely to be flawed.Better to take time and make it a good law that rush through a bad one.
If catholic institutions are told they must allow actions that go against catholic teaching then it is a law that impinges on the catholic right to freedom of religion.Any catholic institution that is willing to do so is betraying the teaching of the church and should remove the word catholic from their title.Jesus hated the lukewarmWe are either with Him or not. If we are not salt and light in the world we deserve to be trampled underfoot.Jesus did not found or endorse any political party.Loyal catholic politicians from any political party must stand up for their faith Better to stand for God and lose your seat than betray Christ.

With universal health care would not abortion become less prevalent if the mother knows she will have health care for the child? Abortion funding i believe was to be by the recipient only. Health care should be provided to all citizens without any preconditions just as Christ did not impose any preconditions on anyone seeking love, understanding and just plain help. If we can play budgetary gimmicks to finance two wars that have turned into business enterprises we can sure the hell provide medical coverage for its own citizens. Lastly, if this health care reform is defeated, then what are the consequences? Do we allow runaway medical premiums to continue and the number of uninsured to keep rising? Or, sad to say we just can't have a black man running this country!

"Lastly, if this health care reform is defeated, then what are the consequences? Do we allow runaway medical premiums to continue and the number of uninsured to keep rising?" --Mike Gunderson

Mike, the reason so many oppose this alleged reform is that we've considered the question, "What are the consequences if this bill is passed?"

Look at the universal coverage system in Massachusetts. Even overtly liberal newspapers haven't been able to dodge the fact that such a plan has done absolutely NOTHING to curb the cost of healthcare or improve its quality. Even one of the Senators who voted for the bill now regrets doing so ("What we did was health insurance reform, not healthcare reform," said Massachusetts state Sen. James Eldridge, a Democrat who regrets having voted for the bill.--LA Times, Oct 17th, 2009).

Economics cannot be divorced from the debate--however much the some would like to see their "good intentions" realized without cost.

Furthermore, when you look at the main causes for most of the rising costs (the main killers are heart disease and lung cancer), one sees they are matters that could almost entirely be mitigated if individuals exercised self-control (a word conspicuously absent from these debates). No government plan can make someone quit smoking, eat less, or in a more healthy manner.

Sure, government can enact reforms that make plans portable or insure the uninsured, but let's not delude ourselves and think either of those will curb costs in any significant way. Ultimately, as they are quickly discovering in Massachusetts, a bankrupt government system will eventually degrade the quality of medical care for everyone, and seriously inhibit the medical advances that've made the US system the leading medical innovator.

That's interesting, Artaban..... I take it you are conservative and against reforming health care. Yet you say: "Furthermore, when you look at the main causes for most of the rising costs (the main killers are heart disease and lung cancer), one sees they are matters that could almost entirely be mitigated if individuals exercised self-control (a word conspicuously absent from these debates). No government plan can make someone quit smoking, eat less, or in a more healthy manner."

Look around you. The liberals are the runners, the tofu crowd and the skinny ones, or hadn't you noticed? When I go to a half marathon I see nothing but Democratic/liberal bumper stickers on cars in the parking lot. And what about those red states like Mississippi? I do believe that is the state with the highest rate of obesity. And the state votes reliably Republican and most folks there oppose health care reform. Why do you think that is?

It would be nice if people would stop using euphemisms for this legislation. Call it what the president and democrats intend for it to be...Government run health care. This legislation in its current form is not reform, it is takeover and control!!Archbishop Chaput is correct that Catholics and Catholic hospitals will be forced into doing things against their consciences and ultimately Catholic run facilities stand a better than average chance of going away.
As for folks like Richard who think the government can cure suffering and despair!! Wake up!! The government is responsible for a large part of it. Anyone who believes the government can effectively and efficiently run one sixth of the economy is deluded.
What needs to happen in the next few days is for anyone opposed to this not so thinly veiled grab at control is to flood your local Senators and Congressmen offices with e-mails advising them that should they persist in this unmitigated grab for control of health care you will work as hard as possible to see they never win elected office again.

Richard, congratulations on a truly ridiculous post. You are quite wrong in surmising I'm against health care reform, though I'm pretty sure we differ greatly on how we'd go about doing it.

I find your claims that "liberals are the runners...and the skinny ones" hilarious in their absurdity. Watch the CDC's graphic on the statewide increase in obesity rates from 1985 to 2006 and try telling me again political affiliation has anything to do with obesity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BRFSS_obesity_1985-2006.gif

You must have had a truly poor science teacher to leap to such empirically ridiculous conclusions. Obesity is increasing most quickly in children, who I think we could all say are pretty apolitical. While you're trying to make asinine conclusions on links between political ideology and obesity, explain for me why it is particularly high among African-Americans, who tend to vote Democratic. You see, when one is scientific, it means you must also account for confounding variables, or you get type 1 errors.

why would the bishops oppose healthcare for those who are squeezed out of the current system? It is very regrettable IF this bill would expand abortion coverage, but should we exclude a larger number of people from legitimate healthcare if that is part of it? Or if it doesn't cover undocumented immigrants?The bishops obviously have health care. Not all of us are able to be so smugly defiant. I found this blog looking for information about how this bill expands abortion access. I find no evidence in Archbishop Chaput's article that it does. It sounds like accusations without evidence typical of the hyper political in both parties these days. It looks like pure soapbox.

Bob h:

"Six Ways the Senate Bill Supports Abortion Funding" (NRLC):

http://www.lifenews.com/nat5862.html

3/08/2010 PART 1;
There is a unity lost between Governing Parties that is needed to help the people feel secure. The moral building block for Health Care.
To see the true Health Care Tax forum you must stop thinking in 3-D,This multi tax forum is against a $100 Trillion Dollar system.. ...
To force pay into another system of failures within Health Care Insurance Groups.
This economy will not balance with this concept of a tax forum against the Health Care System. The issue of how to force pay into this system of Health Care may have worked but I am still troubled over the progressive tax forum within this Bill. It covers so many items and Countries that it only forces the system to adjust itself. In some areas, increases against the people and the troubled economy, and in other areas, less effects will be felt.
But this is my big problem, Government Officials seek help and they are to proud to ask us, “the true working force of Government.” It is understandable they have failed the People and within the United States Of America all we ask is to see us as who we are and not try to bring us into this world of the intellectual. I guess our Prime Directive is that of Star Trek, so it must be understood that for millions of people we are just as happy as can be making $13.00 per hour and we have no interest in this world of politics, and how to be a Enstine. Government Officials must understand that there is a level of people within different parts of this Country, that seek to be only that they find to make them happy.
As for this economy well, it is said that the U.S.A. Arms Division has created enough arsenal to destroy every last creature in the world 2 times over,built with tax dollars. This would be funny if not for the irony of it. And now as time has passed Government Officials keep failing. Before 9/11 all the way to today.
As it is in a world of a system, when employees continue to fail, one or two things happen, one; you get fired, two; if you see into a person a good, then it is political correct to implement a penalty or roll back in pay. But this implement of penalty is more favored in the course of action in the Federal Employment World. So how to fix the economy and unite it with the Health Care issue. It would be in the Countries best interest to implement a 10% per cent penalty against every State, County and Government Official within this Matrix of failures. Hey what is that old saying, what is good for the Goose is good for the Gander. I am serous about this, it is past due to show that our Government Officials they have failed, their system failure reaches into this world of warnings that they brush aside as if the information is not worthy noting. From Pearl Harbor to 9/11/2001 to 3/07/2010 of our tax system and Health Care Reform. This 10% per cent penalty should go into the Health Care Forum.
The big problem that Government Officials have is that they have no street credit. President Obama still has some but if he does not take his family and step away from these dueling Parties, that fight over this Health Care Dollar, and stand with Us he will lose all credit from the streets to the county.
President Obama, I would say to you, you have one last chance to regain the hopes and dreams of the American People. To reach out in a concept that states, if there is 250 million people in trouble because of these failures, I would give all my money to them and then I would say to all that I gave money to, “I have no money left, would you all please give me $1.00 back and then I would have $250. million dollars to start all over again.”

As for this $100,trillion dollar in site.............
Results 1 - 10 of about 685,000 for net worth of medicine development industry
Just to show how deep this Health Care Tax split petition reaches. The term split petition is used because of the Tax factor plan that is not seen because of the intent not to show a capital Taxing of close to a $100 trillion dollar package, a yearly system income, not profit.....

Some have stated that I clam to have spiritual in site or something of the sort. I assure you this is not true, so when I state that I asked God to help, it is my way of saying hey Bobby show me how to work on theses Chevy engines. But I do thank you for the consideration. Consider me a cross of Jethro Bodine from the Beverly Hill Billies with my 10th. Grade education and Vin Diesel from the move Pitch Black.
So drop on by and see page 100 at our site and follow the blue pill link

Health Care within a moral value, is to ,

{ GIVE LIFE TO HOPE WHERE THERE IS NONE }

Henry Massingale
FASC Concepts in and for Pay It Forward
www.fascmovement.mysite.com on google. yahoo, and Aol.com
please take the time and visit all my new friends on the net and if you wish to post with FASC Concepts you will be most welcomed. So join us and share your ideas as one in one voice.

3/21/2010 PART 2;
As you can see our elected officials are paying little attention to the public. As I reach out to my computer and I knock , knock, knock on the screen, and I say is there any body out there?
This Health Care issue keeps taking turns and twist that bewilder the mind in thoughts. This $100 trillion dollar system ,as it would seem, I am counting up to $ 8 trillion 682 billion Dollars so far. On guy emailed me and he is up to $27 Trillion dollars.
You see when Harry Reid added a extra ....almost, $2 Trillion dollars in a tax forum, this through my numbers off with the 1 to 3 year spread of taxes.
Lets show you this way seeing how I run out of fingers to count on and I do not feel like taking my shoes off.....
to get a $4 Trillion dollar tax spread, it is based at a 0.25% up to 4 years.
To be able to see the amount taxed in one year as a whole at 50% is around $8.2 Trillion to $8.8 Trillion, please remember according to Government Officials this is to be a spread tax, 3 to 10 years.. There is over 10 thousand companies I have not even got to yet.
President Obama has stated that he is against taxing the Health Care Industry...the link and story is next...
1.Politico Live: Romer: Obama is against taxing health care ...
Mar 15, 2009 ... Posted By: Obama Will Tax Healthcare | March 15, 2009 at 12:23 PM ..... Just think of the most evil high school teacher you ever had, ...
{Members of Arizonans Against the Hidden Health Care Tax} As for theses hidden taxes, they are not hidden. They are built into a split petition. They are meant not to be seen, only revealed as the Progressive Capital Tax Forum works the system in order to not over burden the money system. What is lost is trust because Government Officials by considering the public slow witted and as for this Bill, I want to read the Law that is to represent the Bill. This is because one word has a directive and a code and a sentence can lead to a different truth in concept.
Health care bill's hidden tax on pain relievers, Pedialyte, and ...
Dec 22, 2009 ... And ironically, this tax that will raise health care costs substantially ... While an over-the-counter drug is less expensive than the prescription ... chronic health problems by regularly taking an over-the-counter medicine. ... Ironically, the liberals and Democrats who normally rail against big ...
www.openmarket.org/.../health-care-bills-hidden-tax-on-pain-relievers-pedialyte-and-prenatal-

I ask you again to type in www.fascmovement.mysite.com in to to web search,{Results 1 - 10 of about 6,730 for www.fascmovement.mysite.com and you will see over 6000 post from aol, google and yahoo, by our friends and supporters plus ,page 19. pay it forward covers the web ,Please visit us on google.com and search for www.fascmovement.mysite.com. All we ask is that you PAY IT FORWARD. Henry Massingale . Threr is over 10,000 post that are active from over 6 months ago..
www.fascmovement.mysite.com/blank_16.html - Cached
Our goal is to start a trickle effect and the goal is President Obama and this Bill to Law. To merge 250 million veiws for a honest Health Care reform. The trickle effect is , Email President Barack Obama
Mar 20, 2009 ... How to contact President Barack Obama and other White House Officials.
www.emailthepresident.com/ - Cached – Similar

When many different views are emailed but not united in a course of action, government Officials do not pay attention. Within the our web site is the views of around 173 million people. Interfaced with the net. This was not a easy task, over 6 months work. Its like this, when I wrote The "International Boycott Of The Arabic Drug Empire" Some say that a boycott is a waist of time and never achieves its goal..... Really, When words written hold truth the people will sit back and their mind will open. Just read and see, truth of words....
As for this economy and the jobs needed, I offer 3 job concepts that will build cities and a strategic placement of Mini Factories where they will support the needs of that town or city. The Adam Walsh School Communities, 52 Communities/ Schools, in each State, to get theses children off of the street before they become tomorrows criminals. The Great Wall Of China to our west, to close off our back door before the enemy walks across the border with that bomb they bought for the price of a Refrigerator. At the same time this Wall will bring life to that region on both sides of the boarder. David Krieger: Nuclear Terrorism and US Nuclear Policy
February 13, 2002. Sen. Russ Feingold War Powers and the War on Terror ... Aisha Ikramuddin on the Hidden Hype of US Food Bombs ... Most Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden ... Since the likelihood of a terrorist using a missile to launch a nuclear attack against ...
www.counterpunch.org/kriegernukepolicy.html - Cached

There has been so much of this God vs. the evil Health Care Plan that I wanted to see if people would allow me to be Gods Arbitrary, to Represent Him, and his views. Oh Im sorry, who am I to speak in behalf of God. I am a Hinzes 57 mix, Jethro Bodine from the Beverly Hill Billies with my 10th. Grade education and Vin Diesel from the move Pitch Black with my mentality.
So what is your vote :
Everywhere I turn people Bible thump in the name of God over this Health Care issue. So lets do this....
In United States
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
1 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20543.
As acting arbitrary: I will write His words as best I can.

Plaintiff ,God: vs. Defendants Republican and Democrat Party

On this day of March 17, 2010, God has filed the following complaint that
#1; That 2020 years ago my Son stated that to let Cesurer have that which is his.
#2; The leaders of this Country have lost their way and this economy that is spoken of to me in prayers is of concern to all. It is of a moral offense for Cesurer to tax that which is not his.
#3. You have placed my name on your money as In God We trust and as of this tax for the Name of Money my Name is lost.
#4.Cesurer must sit down with these people as a one, it is said they who ready to fight in court, that which you wish to tax and work on a forum that is in the creative life of what this Health Care Is For. Become as one again with the People.
#5 The People of this Country will step forward to help and all you have to do is believe in Me and ask theses people for help.....
#6; You have created Laws against me within the lives of children and I do not harbor ill well, the lost vision of what this Country was built on in My Name is broken because of the lost connection between what Governing Officials use to be and the people once stood for.....
#7; Unite this Bill with the Freedom Of Choice to be or not within, rebuild the life of this land of yours, These people will come forward. and help put a balance back into that which is lost....

Health Care within a moral value, is to ,
{ GIVE LIFE TO HOPE WHERE THERE IS NONE }
Henry Massingale
FASC Concepts in and for Pay It Forward
www.fascmovement.mysite.com on google. yahoo, and Aol.com
please take the time and visit all my new friends on the net and if you wish to post with FASC Concepts you will be most welcomed. So join us and share your ideas as one in one voice.

I used to be a devout Catholic. Then came the truly sordid business of priest pedophilia and the totally immoral coverup by the Church's hierarchy afterwards. Both my younger brother and older sister were molested by an older relative pedophile. I taught young people for 36 years and more than likely would have shot myself rather than violate any of them in this atrocious way.
Now we come to the equally sordid business of the Church playing politics with health care reform that would provide access to 32 million more Americans who presently cannot afford the clear cut gouging of health insurance companies (monopolies in at least 11 states). I'm still anti-abortion and pro-life. I am not, however, naive enough to believe Republicans when they say the same. President Bush had a Republican Congress and conservative Supreme Court from 2000-06 and did absolutely nothing about passing anti-abortion legislation by means of a reconciliation process he and his cronies used to pass an unjust and totally useless, deficit-building fat cat tax cut. Evidently, greasing the palms of the Paris Hiltons was more important than saving the lives of all those babies. Now we have a supposedly pro-life Catholic Church insisting that the health care be anti-abortion while 18,000 Americans die yearly because they can't afford health insurance, are denied it for pre-existing conditions as minor as serious asthma, or are dropped when they are chronically ill and no longer profitable to the health insurance companies. I know hypocrisy when I hear and see it, and this stand by the Catholic Bishops is another prime example from a Church in which I lost faith. By the way, I would not vote for anti-abortion legislation that would require an innocent child or young woman to carry the baby of a criminal rapist or a creep pedophile or a cretin who perpetrated incest upon her.
So, I actually hope the Democrats do enter strict language into the bill forbidding federal funding of abortions. I don't know what that act will do to stop insatiably greedy insurance companies from covering it as they do presently because they won't give up the premiums from these irresponsible women. Still, if the Democrats do make federal funding of abortions illegal, they will have done more than the double-talking Republicans have ever done about abortion on demand because the neocons do not want abortions of convenience made illegal at all: it's a wedge issue they relish using in cases just like this health care struggle, and it works with Christians naive enough to believe them.
My father always told me to do what's right, not what's easy or popular. Obviously, he was not a politician, but if the Democrats do what the anti-abortionists in their party want them to do, it is they and not the fat cat party who will have done what’s right, despite the political price they will pay, at least from women who want to continue having abortions. Then we will see if the Church has the backbone to stand with them. If not, I suspect lobbyists of a sort have gotten to the hierarchy.
Always remember: "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren, that you do unto me."

Sincerely,

Greg Van Hee
1958 Graduate of Central Catholic High School

I fear that "processing" and "held for moderation" on this post may, in fact, mean censorship. I guess "freedom of speech" is fast becoming the sole property of the very wealthy buying up most of the public media. So long to an America those "liberal" revolutionists fought and died for long ago while the Tory conservatives, always ardently interested in maintaining the status quo, fought on the side of the British. I honor the name of Bart Stupak here (who because he's thoroughly pro-life and not only cared for victims in the womb but those 18,000 poor Americans who die yearly because they cannot afford the kind of regular preventative care to catch fatal diseases in time for treatment) did more this year than the hypocritical Republicans ever accomplished or wanted to accomplish for pro-life. Passing a fat cat tax cut through reconciliation was far more important for Bush, a Republican Congress and a conservative Supreme Court from 2000-06 than doing the same with a bill to protect the unborn.

P.S. If this post is also censored I know once again why I have lost faith in the truthfulness and integrity of the Catholic Church.

This health care debate just gets me mad these days. The Senate has just been pressing non-stop, non radical health care changes that are complete crap. All this health care change is just smoke and mirrors. I'm very disappointing with how this country's senate has been running our country these days, especially with this whole health care debacle.

It is great to see the Catholics hanging on to the Health Bill for not getting it passed in the Senate because of the three aspects it does not do justice to – the exclusion of abortion funding and services, the conscience protections of the people involved in health care and the inclusion of immigrants – which seem to be justifiable demands which really need to be looked into before the Bill is passed – after all it is the health of the people that we are talking about here and it deserves the highest priority!!

Thanks for this article. According to the article the Senate bill is flawed. There must be reviews done of the Senate bill. The bill does not meet minimum moral standards in three important areas. The areas are the exclusion of abortion funding, adequate conscience protections for health care professionals and the inclusion of immigrants. It seems like the bill does not deserve nor have the support of the Catholic bishops of the country.