It is Worth Asking, “And then what?”
March 27, 2012
Elizabeth Scalia
When the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) raised a reasonable objection to the HHS mandate connected to the Affordable Care Act—a rule which will require all employers (including organizations like the Little Sisters of the Poor and the Sisters of Life) to betray their consciences and include free sterilization coverage and free contraception and abortion drugs in their health insurance plans—White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was dismissive. “The bishops,” he asserted, “never supported health care reform to begin with.”
“That is not the case,” shot back Bishop Stephen Blaire, of the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, “Since 1919, the United States Catholic bishops have supported decent health care for all and government and private action to advance this essential goal.”
This week the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments regarding the constitutionality of what has become known colloquially as Obamacare. On the eve of these hearings, former Vice-President Dick Cheney’s heart transplant came under fire from some questioning whether such surgery is “wasted” on a 71 year-old in retirement, or if the procedure should have been reserved for a younger patient, someone whose life still held the promise of productivity and use.
Such remarks, of course, illustrate how easily publicly funded issues of morality and humanity ironically become publicly funded hotbeds of immoral choices and inhumane calculations. In this case the attempt to provide health care for the greatest number of people quickly becomes a matter of chilly accounting. Human beings become mere units; the consideration of who receives what care becomes a utilitarian process focused on arbitrary valuations of life, and whether one human being is “worth” more than another.
Here, within the neat columns of taxes, fines and penalties received versus benefits paid out, hide the little demons of our spiritual destruction; they encourage the appointing of some flawed and imperfect humans to gauge the worthiness of other flawed and imperfect humans and then relentlessly advise for or against a life based on ever more relativistic (but called “practical”) lines. Giving public voice to their relentless prompting, pundits who recently declared that “60 is the new 40” will suddenly be opining that 71 is too old for a heart. 75 will be considered too old for a new knee—news that will stun active, fully engaged and vital people like my 80 year-old father-in-law.
Saint Philip Neri used to listen to the dreams of those around him, and ask, “and then what?” If someone mentioned a lofty ambition, Philip would tease them about what comes next: “you become rich and successful, and then what?”
“And then I marry a beautiful woman and we travel and enjoy life!”
“And then, what?” Philip would gently ask, over and over, until the dreamer was forced to acknowledge that beyond their dreams lay only death, and an eternity reflecting the values and choices of their relatively short blip of a life.
Once a society commits itself to the notion that only certain people meeting certain specs will be considered for certain procedures, it will soon determine that fatties who are 50 will either submit to increased governmental control over their appetites and exertions or be denied a stent. And then what? Perhaps expectant parents, unwilling to do the socially-and-fiscally-responsible-thing and abort their less-than-perfect children, will face the wrath of their fellow-citizens; having been identified as cruel, heartless people too-willing to birth a child whose quality of life has been determined to be sub-optimal, they may not be allowed to parent at all.
And then what? Perhaps a 45 year-old woman who has never married and has no children (and therefore with no one in urgent need of her existence) will be thought too dispensable and unnecessary for chemo therapy. What does she have to live for, anyway?
And then what? Perhaps people with lower IQ’s—whose lower earning potentials can never generate substantial tax revenues—will be deemed unworthy of costly extended therapies.
And then what? Repeat substance abusers will be deemed too costly for yet another stint in rehab. It might be cheaper—and more “humane”—to let them go out with one big-government-facilitated bang.
And then what? Maybe women who insist on having more than two children in their lifetimes will be forced to accept sterilization or lose their coverage.
And then what? Maybe genetic-engineers will manage to determine which fetuses, in utero, will be predisposed to cancer, diabetes, obesity, or dementia and their lives will be disallowed to proceed. In an election year, this will be called “A plan for future savings.”
And then what?
The urge toward utilitarianism is an urge toward an eventual eclipse of humanity; it is an urge toward material and ideological conformity in creatures so individualized that their fingerprints are as resolutely unique as snowflakes, and thus it is most unnatural.
The Catholic bishops, committed to the equitable treatment of human beings, and ever-mindful of the sanctity of human life, have for nearly 100 years advocated for “decent health care” via “government and private action.” It may be supposed they intended to be one of the private entities assisting toward that goal. In 1919, however, the bishops could not have imagined that the U.S. government would prefer to do without the Catholic social assistance that helped to build the nation, unless it came with an approving nod toward life-denying drugs and procedures.
If Philip Neri’s game of reductive realization is useful—and it is—and if the Supreme Court determines Obamacare to be constitutional, the bishops may yet find themselves with an important role to play; their constant advocacy for human life and the dignity of the human person will serve as the invaluable balancing pole; it will remind the public that their lives are valuable beyond bureaucratic measure, and perhaps it will keep the bean-counting high-wire act from slipping into the void of dehumanizing utilitarianism.
Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for "On the Square" can be found here.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
3.27.2012 | 4:34am
Griff says:
Curiously though? The phrase rejected by St. Philip Neri - "enjoy life" - is advocated in the Bible itself. By Ecclesiastes.
Ecclesiastes confronted the idea that our material life here on earth seems like "vanity." But amazingly, Ecclesiastes also further suggested, that the idea of a life after death might not be the answer either: "no one knows" whether there is a Heaven or a Hell, or an afterlife, he said.
Therefore, what was Ecclesiastes' answer, on how to conduct our lives? His surprising biblical answer, which contradicts much of current popular theology, was prescisely, to tell us to simply enjoy the time you have on earth: "enjoy life," said Ecclesiastes. In Ecc. 9.9, 2.1, 3.12-22, 8.15.
Why did St. Neri allow himself to appear to contradict the Bible? Eccleciastes is sometimes characterized as a materialistic hedonist. And as an agnostic, regarding the afterlife. Yet amazingly of course, his book, his philosophy, is included the Bible itself. And it is even called one of the "Wisdom" books.
And so, knowing that the philosophy that he perhaps wanted to reject, was advocated in the Bible itself? St. Neri it seems, did not state his anti-hedonist idea, as a flat statement or an assertion; but merely asked a question about it all. He asked others about life - "and then what."
But note a fine point of Biblical semantics here. Neri above, does not quite state his objection to the enjoy life philosphy, as a clear assertion; but only as an open (if leading) question. Because to frame his idea as a statement, an assertion, would generate an assertion ... that would contradict part of the Bible itself.
Ecclesiastes confronted the idea that our material life here on earth seems like "vanity." But amazingly, Ecclesiastes also further suggested, that the idea of a life after death might not be the answer either: "no one knows" whether there is a Heaven or a Hell, or an afterlife, he said.
Therefore, what was Ecclesiastes' answer, on how to conduct our lives? His surprising biblical answer, which contradicts much of current popular theology, was prescisely, to tell us to simply enjoy the time you have on earth: "enjoy life," said Ecclesiastes. In Ecc. 9.9, 2.1, 3.12-22, 8.15.
Why did St. Neri allow himself to appear to contradict the Bible? Eccleciastes is sometimes characterized as a materialistic hedonist. And as an agnostic, regarding the afterlife. Yet amazingly of course, his book, his philosophy, is included the Bible itself. And it is even called one of the "Wisdom" books.
And so, knowing that the philosophy that he perhaps wanted to reject, was advocated in the Bible itself? St. Neri it seems, did not state his anti-hedonist idea, as a flat statement or an assertion; but merely asked a question about it all. He asked others about life - "and then what."
But note a fine point of Biblical semantics here. Neri above, does not quite state his objection to the enjoy life philosphy, as a clear assertion; but only as an open (if leading) question. Because to frame his idea as a statement, an assertion, would generate an assertion ... that would contradict part of the Bible itself.
3.27.2012 | 8:45am
DHC says:
I currently live in a state that graciously provides absolute bare minimum (in a moral sense) coverage to all children. Children, therefore wih congenital chronic illnesses who are managed well and receive good care (with care in excess of $2000/month) can live fairly normal lives, but upon reaching 18 are "on their own" in the Darwinian world of American health care. This means that they are thrown off the public support mechanisms and often receive no care. Their health then declines. Their lives are often shortened-with the consequences of their congenital diseases destroying their bodies in sometimes slow, sometimes fast, but inevitable way. Only after developing permanent disability, sometime within the next two years, reducing their life span by decades, or maybe to just a decade with death now inevitable before age 30, can they receive medical assistance again through disability and government assistance.
This is the current intentional arrangement. Young men and women are neglected and this has been deemed adequate.
Wih this happening to my current patients, I cannot even worry about someone questioning whether Cheney should have received all the care he has gotten because I know real people who are the victims of this current arrangement. Someone has questioned Dick Cheney's care in a philosophical discussion of utility and conservatives rally to the defense. Where are these folks for all the sick people without health care? On March 23rd, people were being gravely injured because they lacked health care, yet, conservative commentary was silent. Someone questions Dick Cheney's use of what is actually a scarce commodity-one that is donated and one that goes to less than one in four who will actually need a heart transplant (suggesting that there are rationing mechanisms already). Politicians always seem to get an organ, however. Cheney now. Casey in the 90's.
Conservatives need to meet the people who are victims of the current scheme.
Conservatives also should be shamed by their utter silence on the matter, except for ways to sabotage Democratic attempts over the last two decades.
Rest assured, conservatives have been antagonistic to arrangements to provide my patients with health care, resulting in injury and illness that is life-shortening. But, even voice a concern about Dick Cheney's heart transplant, a scarce commodity rationed already, and there is a rush to defend his health care.
This is why it becomes hard to take conservatives seriously on this discussion at any time.
This is the current intentional arrangement. Young men and women are neglected and this has been deemed adequate.
Wih this happening to my current patients, I cannot even worry about someone questioning whether Cheney should have received all the care he has gotten because I know real people who are the victims of this current arrangement. Someone has questioned Dick Cheney's care in a philosophical discussion of utility and conservatives rally to the defense. Where are these folks for all the sick people without health care? On March 23rd, people were being gravely injured because they lacked health care, yet, conservative commentary was silent. Someone questions Dick Cheney's use of what is actually a scarce commodity-one that is donated and one that goes to less than one in four who will actually need a heart transplant (suggesting that there are rationing mechanisms already). Politicians always seem to get an organ, however. Cheney now. Casey in the 90's.
Conservatives need to meet the people who are victims of the current scheme.
Conservatives also should be shamed by their utter silence on the matter, except for ways to sabotage Democratic attempts over the last two decades.
Rest assured, conservatives have been antagonistic to arrangements to provide my patients with health care, resulting in injury and illness that is life-shortening. But, even voice a concern about Dick Cheney's heart transplant, a scarce commodity rationed already, and there is a rush to defend his health care.
This is why it becomes hard to take conservatives seriously on this discussion at any time.
3.27.2012 | 11:29am
Artaban7 says:
Excellent article, Mrs. Scalia! Let us hope its more horrifying hypotheticals do not prove prescient, and that people have the good judgment to reverse the path our government has been treading for nearly 20+ years.
3.27.2012 | 11:55am
David Nickol says:
It is extraordinarily ironic that Ms. Scalia and those who think like her imagine that a plan to come as close as possible to having every American covered by health insurance is in reality a plot to kill people off. Will people really be worse off than they are now if they get health insurance?
3.27.2012 | 11:57am
Ken Colston says:
I agree with the "reduction" analysis and the slippery slope to utilitarianism, but yet unanswered is the dilemma of how to distribute limited goods. Flip a coin? First come, first served? Highest bidder? Politburo pull? Most likely to survive afterwards?
3.27.2012 | 1:20pm
Elizabeth Scalia says:
Rick, here are a few of the "some" you were asking about:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/26/how-dick-cheney-got-his-new-heart.html
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/03/25/new-civility-twitter-explodes-with-lefty-hate-following-cheneys-heart-transplant/
Others were pundits I saw talking over the issue on cable news channels, but I was busy this weekend and didn't really take note of who they were. My point in bringing that up was to illustrate how easy it is to dehumanize people and begin to think of them in terms of what they are worth. Of course there are always two sides to an issue. But if the 20th century taught us anything, it taught that a consolidation of power to government bureaucracies leads to these squeezing questions of who is entitled to what and lives are expendable as we try to reach a particular goal. I'm no ogre suggesting people should not have medical care; quite the opposite. But the utilitarian mindset is already displaying itself at work, and this administrations apparent determination to marginalize church ministries that could actually lend efficient assistance toward the goal of helping "everybody" will ultimately hurt, not help.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/26/how-dick-cheney-got-his-new-heart.html
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/03/25/new-civility-twitter-explodes-with-lefty-hate-following-cheneys-heart-transplant/
Others were pundits I saw talking over the issue on cable news channels, but I was busy this weekend and didn't really take note of who they were. My point in bringing that up was to illustrate how easy it is to dehumanize people and begin to think of them in terms of what they are worth. Of course there are always two sides to an issue. But if the 20th century taught us anything, it taught that a consolidation of power to government bureaucracies leads to these squeezing questions of who is entitled to what and lives are expendable as we try to reach a particular goal. I'm no ogre suggesting people should not have medical care; quite the opposite. But the utilitarian mindset is already displaying itself at work, and this administrations apparent determination to marginalize church ministries that could actually lend efficient assistance toward the goal of helping "everybody" will ultimately hurt, not help.
3.27.2012 | 1:34pm
Elizabeth Scalia says:
Griff, you're a bit harsh on Neri. May I suggest you read The Fire of Joy and get acquainted with his very joyful life.
DHC, my mentioning Cheney's heart transplant and some of the questions following it was not a defense of the man; it was merely an observance of some synchronicity (it occurred on the eve of the SCOTUS debates) and the way human beings can quickly become dehumanized and deemed "less-than-deserving". This column actually was not about "conservatives and liberals" or "Democrats and Republicans" at all. It was about the historic propensities to decide who is to get the goods when resources are finite, a decision too often based upon dubious criteria, and the sad fact that the churches -- had the government desired to partner with them -- could have been an effective balancing agent against the devaluation of human beings as health care reform is effected. Now, she must work from the outside. You're the one who assigned all sorts of partisan meaning, here.
DHC, my mentioning Cheney's heart transplant and some of the questions following it was not a defense of the man; it was merely an observance of some synchronicity (it occurred on the eve of the SCOTUS debates) and the way human beings can quickly become dehumanized and deemed "less-than-deserving". This column actually was not about "conservatives and liberals" or "Democrats and Republicans" at all. It was about the historic propensities to decide who is to get the goods when resources are finite, a decision too often based upon dubious criteria, and the sad fact that the churches -- had the government desired to partner with them -- could have been an effective balancing agent against the devaluation of human beings as health care reform is effected. Now, she must work from the outside. You're the one who assigned all sorts of partisan meaning, here.
3.27.2012 | 1:38pm
Steve C says:
Mr. Colston - one answer would be to become an organ donor (full disclosure - I am not)...
3.27.2012 | 1:39pm
Stephen J. says:
David:
I agree that it seems ironic that a plan to cover every American by health insurance may be seen as a plan to kill people off, but as Ken Colston touches on tangentially, the problem is simply how to allocate supply and demand when a simplistically flat "divide available resources evenly among all individuals" cannot provide adequate coverage either.
A plan to ensure everyone at the table gets "something" to eat may, in fact, turn out to be unable to ensure everyone at the table gets *enough* to eat if there just isn't enough food for that, and thus turn by de facto necessity into a plan that decides who can most "afford" to go hungry.
Alternately, it can turn into a plan that -- in the name of "fair distribution" -- says to a rich man at the table, "No, you can't buy your own meal and eat it yourself, even though that frees up more food to go around for the rest of us; we're going to take your money and spread it around to buy more food for everyone... OK, when we have to divide it, it still doesn't come up to 'enough' for everyone else, but it comes out to more than it did, and anyway that's not the point; the point is to be 'fair' and ensure everyone gets *something*, and that you don't get to gorge yourself at our (albeit negligible) expense."
And even if neither of those strikes one as problematic, the questions of who comes up with the menu, makes the serving decisions, and how quickly, effectively and accurately they can adjust the menus on the fly for thousands of "diners" can still be sticking points. When it takes four hours to decide who should get the largest part of the next course, many of the diners may well have gotten hunger cramps in the interim, and by the time they get what they've been allocated, what they've been allocated no longer suffices.
Yet -- in keeping with what Ms. Scalia's written about "bad faith" elsewhere -- to object to a particular solution on the grounds that it is ineffective, unworkable, or unjust is never taken as a practical criticism of means anymore, but always as a poorly-disguised moral objection to the ends.
I agree that it seems ironic that a plan to cover every American by health insurance may be seen as a plan to kill people off, but as Ken Colston touches on tangentially, the problem is simply how to allocate supply and demand when a simplistically flat "divide available resources evenly among all individuals" cannot provide adequate coverage either.
A plan to ensure everyone at the table gets "something" to eat may, in fact, turn out to be unable to ensure everyone at the table gets *enough* to eat if there just isn't enough food for that, and thus turn by de facto necessity into a plan that decides who can most "afford" to go hungry.
Alternately, it can turn into a plan that -- in the name of "fair distribution" -- says to a rich man at the table, "No, you can't buy your own meal and eat it yourself, even though that frees up more food to go around for the rest of us; we're going to take your money and spread it around to buy more food for everyone... OK, when we have to divide it, it still doesn't come up to 'enough' for everyone else, but it comes out to more than it did, and anyway that's not the point; the point is to be 'fair' and ensure everyone gets *something*, and that you don't get to gorge yourself at our (albeit negligible) expense."
And even if neither of those strikes one as problematic, the questions of who comes up with the menu, makes the serving decisions, and how quickly, effectively and accurately they can adjust the menus on the fly for thousands of "diners" can still be sticking points. When it takes four hours to decide who should get the largest part of the next course, many of the diners may well have gotten hunger cramps in the interim, and by the time they get what they've been allocated, what they've been allocated no longer suffices.
Yet -- in keeping with what Ms. Scalia's written about "bad faith" elsewhere -- to object to a particular solution on the grounds that it is ineffective, unworkable, or unjust is never taken as a practical criticism of means anymore, but always as a poorly-disguised moral objection to the ends.
3.27.2012 | 1:44pm
Jason says:
I'd have to second David Nickol here.
In Psychology, there is something called "projection"; relating to the theory of the "other." Basically, what is it? It asserts that people with guilty consciences often accuse others, of what they are mostly guilty of themselves. Reflecting Jesus' and Paul's observation of similar things too.
And? The Conservative Catholic position against public health care, is a classic case of "Projection." Ironically, it is conservatives' idea of health care, not Liberals, that is 1) excluding people, and letting them die. Letting them die if they are ... too poor to get health insurance. Letting un-favore people die. Which is 2) exactly what they are accusing others of. That is called "projection."
Even as? Worse, 3) conservatives contradict the Bible, and one of Jesus' primary missions: to heal the poor and the sick.
Would say, conservative religious-based programs do better than HHS? We had conservative charity-based health care for centuries; the current program is designed to take care of the millions of poor people that existing religious programs did not take care of.
Are there limited resources here to hand out ? There always are. But then a classic Christian rule of thumb seems to apply here: when resources are limited, especially in matters of life and death? Then one should simply share what one has.
It is time for Catholics to step up. And to obey God's command, to support real Charity. Saving poor sick people, from disease, and death.
Just like Jesus did.
In Psychology, there is something called "projection"; relating to the theory of the "other." Basically, what is it? It asserts that people with guilty consciences often accuse others, of what they are mostly guilty of themselves. Reflecting Jesus' and Paul's observation of similar things too.
And? The Conservative Catholic position against public health care, is a classic case of "Projection." Ironically, it is conservatives' idea of health care, not Liberals, that is 1) excluding people, and letting them die. Letting them die if they are ... too poor to get health insurance. Letting un-favore people die. Which is 2) exactly what they are accusing others of. That is called "projection."
Even as? Worse, 3) conservatives contradict the Bible, and one of Jesus' primary missions: to heal the poor and the sick.
Would say, conservative religious-based programs do better than HHS? We had conservative charity-based health care for centuries; the current program is designed to take care of the millions of poor people that existing religious programs did not take care of.
Are there limited resources here to hand out ? There always are. But then a classic Christian rule of thumb seems to apply here: when resources are limited, especially in matters of life and death? Then one should simply share what one has.
It is time for Catholics to step up. And to obey God's command, to support real Charity. Saving poor sick people, from disease, and death.
Just like Jesus did.
3.27.2012 | 1:46pm
Michael PS says:
Ken Colston asks the obvious question: if the distribution is to beother than random, not only must some criterion be used, but someone must decide what criterion is to be chosen
3.27.2012 | 1:50pm
Tony Francois says:
This is an issue in which people tend to talk past each other. For all of those with tragic examples of the inadequacy of the current system of health care, you should consider whether at least some of those who argue against the Patient Protection Act (in case 'ObamaCare' seems too loaded a term) do so because they reasonably judge that it will, at best, redirect those tragedies to others, rather than solve those problems.
Is it really a sure sign of heartless cruelty to the poor to want better for them than can be delivered by the likes of the Veterans Administration? Is it mere grovelling before the graven image of the invisible hand to desire to be free of a health care system that already reflects the priorities of the culture of death? And perhaps beyond that, since when am I against quality medicine for the poor if I do not support it being delivered (and rationed) by a 'my way or the highway' federal bureaucrat?
A dear friend from college died of cystic fibrosis in his twenties, after spending several months on a lung transplant list. Another friend has two children with CF. Other friends have multiple children with special needs. I have seven children with our eighth on the way this summer, and I am fortunate to have health insurance through COBRA. I don't care to be lectured to the effect that ObamaCare is self-evidently righteous, if you just have a little empathy for real people. I happen to think that real people (including the family for which I am personally responsible) deserve better than we are getting from health insurance companies and hospitals, and better than I am certain we will get from the other set of heartless and mindless bureaucrats at HHS. A pox on both houses.
In practice, for those who are not familiar with the Beltway phenomenon called The Revolving Door, executives will shuttle back and forth between private insurance firms and HHS bureaucracies, much as happens now between Treasury and the Wall Street houses, or the Pentagon and Defense Contractors. Or Department of Agriculture and Farming. Or FDA and Big Pharma. Or every other Great Big Agency Regulating Great Big Industry that you can name in Washington. So, if you really think that it will be different with medicine, I challenge you to argue why this one will go against form.
One of the biggest problems posed by a top down system to force (herd, incent, regulate, whatever) everyone into a single ubiquitous government-designed system is that it eliminates opportunities for innovation, new growth, new ways to pursue excellence, different models, and freedom. It crowds out other sources of leadership and service, for example, the Roman Catholic Church, original inventor of medicine for the poor. Any virtuous system would need to allow for organizations like the Church to step up and provide care in new and better ways, which is one of the steps that is really necessary for a true reform of medicine in our society.
The subject is also a grim illustration of the importance of subsidiarity in the Church's worldview. Subsidiarity reflects, among other insights, the reality that some bureaucrat at the end of a phone line in a call center somewhere is not the most likely person to empathize with and solve problems for an impoverished cancer patient. That person losing their job with a health insurance company and being hired by HHS is not going to change that.
Is it really a sure sign of heartless cruelty to the poor to want better for them than can be delivered by the likes of the Veterans Administration? Is it mere grovelling before the graven image of the invisible hand to desire to be free of a health care system that already reflects the priorities of the culture of death? And perhaps beyond that, since when am I against quality medicine for the poor if I do not support it being delivered (and rationed) by a 'my way or the highway' federal bureaucrat?
A dear friend from college died of cystic fibrosis in his twenties, after spending several months on a lung transplant list. Another friend has two children with CF. Other friends have multiple children with special needs. I have seven children with our eighth on the way this summer, and I am fortunate to have health insurance through COBRA. I don't care to be lectured to the effect that ObamaCare is self-evidently righteous, if you just have a little empathy for real people. I happen to think that real people (including the family for which I am personally responsible) deserve better than we are getting from health insurance companies and hospitals, and better than I am certain we will get from the other set of heartless and mindless bureaucrats at HHS. A pox on both houses.
In practice, for those who are not familiar with the Beltway phenomenon called The Revolving Door, executives will shuttle back and forth between private insurance firms and HHS bureaucracies, much as happens now between Treasury and the Wall Street houses, or the Pentagon and Defense Contractors. Or Department of Agriculture and Farming. Or FDA and Big Pharma. Or every other Great Big Agency Regulating Great Big Industry that you can name in Washington. So, if you really think that it will be different with medicine, I challenge you to argue why this one will go against form.
One of the biggest problems posed by a top down system to force (herd, incent, regulate, whatever) everyone into a single ubiquitous government-designed system is that it eliminates opportunities for innovation, new growth, new ways to pursue excellence, different models, and freedom. It crowds out other sources of leadership and service, for example, the Roman Catholic Church, original inventor of medicine for the poor. Any virtuous system would need to allow for organizations like the Church to step up and provide care in new and better ways, which is one of the steps that is really necessary for a true reform of medicine in our society.
The subject is also a grim illustration of the importance of subsidiarity in the Church's worldview. Subsidiarity reflects, among other insights, the reality that some bureaucrat at the end of a phone line in a call center somewhere is not the most likely person to empathize with and solve problems for an impoverished cancer patient. That person losing their job with a health insurance company and being hired by HHS is not going to change that.
3.27.2012 | 2:06pm
Will Marrero says:
Ms Scalia is not saying that it is a plot to kill people off. What she is saying is that the plan will systematically strip human beings of their dignity by basing their treatment on their perceived value to society.
3.27.2012 | 2:47pm
Griff says:
Will:
Discriminating against people on the basis of their perceived value to society, is precisely and exactly, what HHS attempts to fix, and does not do: it is dedicated to helping, extending aid to, precisely the poorest and (by some measures) least productive members of soceity.
Discriminating against people on the basis of their perceived value to society, is precisely and exactly, what HHS attempts to fix, and does not do: it is dedicated to helping, extending aid to, precisely the poorest and (by some measures) least productive members of soceity.
3.27.2012 | 3:15pm
Artaban7 says:
Jason, I feel the amusement accompanying the sight of irony when I read your post. You speak of "projection", then fail to see it's very clear expression in your own condemnations of "conservatives". Reread parts of your own post, and see the projection you've made on the "others" called conservatives:
"And? The Conservative Catholic position against public health care, is a classic case of "Projection." Ironically, it is conservatives' idea of health care, not Liberals, that is 1) excluding people, and letting them die. Letting them die if they are ... too poor to get health insurance. Letting un-favore people die. Which is 2) exactly what they are accusing others of. That is called "projection."...
Even as? Worse, 3) conservatives contradict the Bible..."
You quoted Paul. I will quote to you Jesus, "Remove the log from your own eye, then you can remove the splinter from your neighbor's"...
As for your comment, "It is time for Catholics to step up. And to obey God's command, to support real Charity. Saving poor sick people, from disease, and death," I wholeheartedly agree, and that's precisely why we shouldn't renounce our responsibility and turn it all over to the Federal Government. It's not their responsibility. It is ours.
And I'd point out Catholicism has been doing a better job of saving the poor and sick than any other group of people. Probably in all of human history, too. For all intents and purposes, we created the modern hospital system. We run the largest healthcare system in the world, and, I believe, still the largest in the country.
We've got more experience than the government. We've got better infrastructure. We've got programs to get aid to the poor, though too few know of them or take advantage of them.
"And? The Conservative Catholic position against public health care, is a classic case of "Projection." Ironically, it is conservatives' idea of health care, not Liberals, that is 1) excluding people, and letting them die. Letting them die if they are ... too poor to get health insurance. Letting un-favore people die. Which is 2) exactly what they are accusing others of. That is called "projection."...
Even as? Worse, 3) conservatives contradict the Bible..."
You quoted Paul. I will quote to you Jesus, "Remove the log from your own eye, then you can remove the splinter from your neighbor's"...
As for your comment, "It is time for Catholics to step up. And to obey God's command, to support real Charity. Saving poor sick people, from disease, and death," I wholeheartedly agree, and that's precisely why we shouldn't renounce our responsibility and turn it all over to the Federal Government. It's not their responsibility. It is ours.
And I'd point out Catholicism has been doing a better job of saving the poor and sick than any other group of people. Probably in all of human history, too. For all intents and purposes, we created the modern hospital system. We run the largest healthcare system in the world, and, I believe, still the largest in the country.
We've got more experience than the government. We've got better infrastructure. We've got programs to get aid to the poor, though too few know of them or take advantage of them.
3.27.2012 | 3:41pm
Jbl says:
Jason wrote: "It is time for Catholics to step up. And to obey God's command, to support real Charity. Saving poor sick people, from disease, and death.
Just like Jesus did."
Please read some Catholic history, Jason. Quickly.
Just like Jesus did."
Please read some Catholic history, Jason. Quickly.
3.27.2012 | 3:53pm
David Nickol says:
I am not sure talk of "rationing" makes any sense. For those not on Medicaid and Medicare, as I understand it, the government is setting a floor but not a ceiling for insurance coverage (although once employer-provided insurance passes a certain point and becomes a "Cadillac Plan," it will be taxed). If your employer provides insurance coverage, or you provide your own, I see no way for the government to step in and deny "a 45 year-old woman who has never married and has no children" chemotherapy because she is "dispensable." If somehow that can happen, I'd like to know how.
As for Medicare and Medicaid, they've been in operation for almost 50 years now, and to the best of my knowledge, "dispensable" poor women have not been denied chemotherapy, and nobody has pulled the plug on grandma.
I think people who fear "rationing" are people who fear that somehow the rich will have something taken away from them that they can now get. But the rich can pay for their own insurance, or if they are over 65 they can either buy private insurance or buy top-notch Medigap insurance to supplement Social Security.
There is somewhat of a contradiction coming from conservatives, it seems to me, in that they seem to be worried that health care will be rationed, and they never tire of telling us that Medicare is too expensive and must be scaled back. Exactly how is Medicare supposed to offer increasingly expensive coverage to everyone over 65 and at the same time cut costs?
Of course, health care is "rationed" already in that if you are rich or well-insured, you get it, and if you are poor or underinsured, maybe you get it and maybe you don't.
As for Medicare and Medicaid, they've been in operation for almost 50 years now, and to the best of my knowledge, "dispensable" poor women have not been denied chemotherapy, and nobody has pulled the plug on grandma.
I think people who fear "rationing" are people who fear that somehow the rich will have something taken away from them that they can now get. But the rich can pay for their own insurance, or if they are over 65 they can either buy private insurance or buy top-notch Medigap insurance to supplement Social Security.
There is somewhat of a contradiction coming from conservatives, it seems to me, in that they seem to be worried that health care will be rationed, and they never tire of telling us that Medicare is too expensive and must be scaled back. Exactly how is Medicare supposed to offer increasingly expensive coverage to everyone over 65 and at the same time cut costs?
Of course, health care is "rationed" already in that if you are rich or well-insured, you get it, and if you are poor or underinsured, maybe you get it and maybe you don't.
3.27.2012 | 4:04pm
Brian English says:
"Even as? Worse, 3) conservatives contradict the Bible..."
Ah yes, my favorite verse in the New Testament, the Gospel of Matthew I believe, where Jesus states, "Whatsoever you lobby the Roman Senate and the Emperor to do for the least of these, that you have lobbied the Roman Senate and the Emperor to do for me."
"I wholeheartedly agree, and that's precisely why we shouldn't renounce our responsibility and turn it all over to the Federal Government. It's not their responsibility. It is ours."
It never ceases to amaze me how Social Justice Catholics have completely discarded the concept that the charitable activities of the Church are meant to heal souls as well as bodies.
Ah yes, my favorite verse in the New Testament, the Gospel of Matthew I believe, where Jesus states, "Whatsoever you lobby the Roman Senate and the Emperor to do for the least of these, that you have lobbied the Roman Senate and the Emperor to do for me."
"I wholeheartedly agree, and that's precisely why we shouldn't renounce our responsibility and turn it all over to the Federal Government. It's not their responsibility. It is ours."
It never ceases to amaze me how Social Justice Catholics have completely discarded the concept that the charitable activities of the Church are meant to heal souls as well as bodies.
3.27.2012 | 5:17pm
Artaban7 says:
"There is somewhat of a contradiction coming from conservatives, it seems to me, in that they seem to be worried that health care will be rationed, and they never tire of telling us that Medicare is too expensive and must be scaled back. Exactly how is Medicare supposed to offer increasingly expensive coverage to everyone over 65 and at the same time cut costs? " --David Nickols
Not a contradiction, David, for a few reasons. Fraud is a biggy, as this report from 4 years ago states:
"A whopping $70 billion out of the estimated $400 billion budgeted for Medicare in 2008 may disappear this year due to fraud and mismanagement. The taxpayer-funded system to cover health care for Americans aged 65 or older is projected to lose that amount, which is equivalent to $233 for every American.
Public-policy professor Malcolm Sparrow of Harvard University, who studies Medicare fraud, believes that as much as 20% of the agency’s funds annually may go toward fake claims and mischarges. “Defrauding Medicare is easy and safe,” says Sparrow. “The spending is huge. The spending on controls is minimal. Bills are paid and processed by computers, and no human sees them.” In a recently reported case, one firm billed Medicare $170 million for fake HIV drug infusions. Dozens of companies charged a total of $142 million for unnecessary medical supplies, such as prosthetic limbs. Because of repeat invoicing, $5 million was spent on a single wheelchair...."
http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2008/edition_04-20-2008/Intelligence_Report
Secondly, there is the matter of excessive paperwork and compliance. Years ago, when I handled government compliance for my father's small manufacturing business, I kept the changes in regulations that were sent to us by the EPA, state of Missori, etc. At the end of the year, I weighed the pages in the compliance manuals we'd had to replace because of revisions in the last year. The weight of the paper alone from the changes came to 74 lbs. For one company. Many of those changes didn't effect us, but we had to devote dozens of hours reading them to make sure the ones that didn't, didn't, and then even more to comply with those that did. Some of the changes amounted to a mere rewording of the same sentence, or omission of the word "of" or "the".
It's wasteful and inefficient. There are government workers getting paid to push paper rather than do anything that's actually productive. It ties up resources and manpower that could be used curing cancer rather than counting beans.
Some oversight is necessary and good. Excessive oversight is stifling and regressive.
Finally, there are talented, hardworking people that choose other professions rather than have to deal with the nightmare of government, the risk of specious malpractice lawsuits, and the violation of their consciences (see HHS). It decreases supply, and as any econ student knows, scarcity of supply and excess of demand drives up price/cost. The above reasons also account for the rationing that will inevitably occur under a government run "Universal" system, as evidenced by failed Communist attempts of the same.
Not a contradiction, David, for a few reasons. Fraud is a biggy, as this report from 4 years ago states:
"A whopping $70 billion out of the estimated $400 billion budgeted for Medicare in 2008 may disappear this year due to fraud and mismanagement. The taxpayer-funded system to cover health care for Americans aged 65 or older is projected to lose that amount, which is equivalent to $233 for every American.
Public-policy professor Malcolm Sparrow of Harvard University, who studies Medicare fraud, believes that as much as 20% of the agency’s funds annually may go toward fake claims and mischarges. “Defrauding Medicare is easy and safe,” says Sparrow. “The spending is huge. The spending on controls is minimal. Bills are paid and processed by computers, and no human sees them.” In a recently reported case, one firm billed Medicare $170 million for fake HIV drug infusions. Dozens of companies charged a total of $142 million for unnecessary medical supplies, such as prosthetic limbs. Because of repeat invoicing, $5 million was spent on a single wheelchair...."
http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2008/edition_04-20-2008/Intelligence_Report
Secondly, there is the matter of excessive paperwork and compliance. Years ago, when I handled government compliance for my father's small manufacturing business, I kept the changes in regulations that were sent to us by the EPA, state of Missori, etc. At the end of the year, I weighed the pages in the compliance manuals we'd had to replace because of revisions in the last year. The weight of the paper alone from the changes came to 74 lbs. For one company. Many of those changes didn't effect us, but we had to devote dozens of hours reading them to make sure the ones that didn't, didn't, and then even more to comply with those that did. Some of the changes amounted to a mere rewording of the same sentence, or omission of the word "of" or "the".
It's wasteful and inefficient. There are government workers getting paid to push paper rather than do anything that's actually productive. It ties up resources and manpower that could be used curing cancer rather than counting beans.
Some oversight is necessary and good. Excessive oversight is stifling and regressive.
Finally, there are talented, hardworking people that choose other professions rather than have to deal with the nightmare of government, the risk of specious malpractice lawsuits, and the violation of their consciences (see HHS). It decreases supply, and as any econ student knows, scarcity of supply and excess of demand drives up price/cost. The above reasons also account for the rationing that will inevitably occur under a government run "Universal" system, as evidenced by failed Communist attempts of the same.
3.27.2012 | 5:28pm
David Nickol says:
Will Marrero,
You say: "Ms Scalia is not saying that it is a plot to kill people off. What she is saying is that the plan will systematically strip human beings of their dignity by basing their treatment on their perceived value to society."
However, the question about a heart transplant for a 71-year-old is not what value he is to society. It is whether his life expectancy is such that giving him a new heart is the appropriate use for a limited resource. If he is in otherwise good health, and can afford excellent medical care after the transplant, then I think the consensus is that he qualifies for a heart transplant. But what if someone is 81, or 91, or 101? Several here have raised the question, but unless I have overlooked something, no one, including Ms. Scalia has answered it: What criteria do you use when there are more people in need of donated organs than there are donated organs?
Is there any sign at all the the government, through Medicaid or Medicare, is denying people needed care because of their "worth to society"? If there is a slippery slope here, let's see some example that we have actually begun to slide down it.
In the United States, people may very well not get medical care because they are poor, but if there is an example of someone being denied medical care by the government because they are deemed not to be of worth to society, I would like to know about it. Is there any reason at all to think any of Ms. Scalia's grim scenarios actually lie in the future?
You say: "Ms Scalia is not saying that it is a plot to kill people off. What she is saying is that the plan will systematically strip human beings of their dignity by basing their treatment on their perceived value to society."
However, the question about a heart transplant for a 71-year-old is not what value he is to society. It is whether his life expectancy is such that giving him a new heart is the appropriate use for a limited resource. If he is in otherwise good health, and can afford excellent medical care after the transplant, then I think the consensus is that he qualifies for a heart transplant. But what if someone is 81, or 91, or 101? Several here have raised the question, but unless I have overlooked something, no one, including Ms. Scalia has answered it: What criteria do you use when there are more people in need of donated organs than there are donated organs?
Is there any sign at all the the government, through Medicaid or Medicare, is denying people needed care because of their "worth to society"? If there is a slippery slope here, let's see some example that we have actually begun to slide down it.
In the United States, people may very well not get medical care because they are poor, but if there is an example of someone being denied medical care by the government because they are deemed not to be of worth to society, I would like to know about it. Is there any reason at all to think any of Ms. Scalia's grim scenarios actually lie in the future?
3.27.2012 | 5:31pm
Brian LeCompte says:
One of the assumptions the United States makes right now in its argument before the Supreme Court, and some commentators here, is that medical costs will rise over time. What is the basis for this assumption?
Could it not be suggested that rather than lower medical costs by expanding insurance coverage the government ought to lower costs by attacking the causes of their rise?
For example, if costs are rising due to increasing malpractice insurance, limit malpractice awards. If costs are rising because of higher demand, increase supply by subsidizing medical school for qualified applicants, or subsidize medical care itself through tax incentives for rural doctors.
For all we know, and all we have learned since the last financial crash, is that unexpected events happen that fundamentally alter markets forces. On top of that, global shifts in population are now occuring, along with the ever-present possibility of war and catastrophe. There is no reason to make a law to fix a problem which will occur later (too many old, sick people; too many expensive procedures), when you never know what tomorrow will bring for this world. If the problem today is that insurance is too high for the uninsured, figure out why medical costs are higher and work to lower them. Insurance will follow.
Could it not be suggested that rather than lower medical costs by expanding insurance coverage the government ought to lower costs by attacking the causes of their rise?
For example, if costs are rising due to increasing malpractice insurance, limit malpractice awards. If costs are rising because of higher demand, increase supply by subsidizing medical school for qualified applicants, or subsidize medical care itself through tax incentives for rural doctors.
For all we know, and all we have learned since the last financial crash, is that unexpected events happen that fundamentally alter markets forces. On top of that, global shifts in population are now occuring, along with the ever-present possibility of war and catastrophe. There is no reason to make a law to fix a problem which will occur later (too many old, sick people; too many expensive procedures), when you never know what tomorrow will bring for this world. If the problem today is that insurance is too high for the uninsured, figure out why medical costs are higher and work to lower them. Insurance will follow.
3.27.2012 | 5:41pm
donald todd says:
There are two problems I recognized here. First is that the bishops, whose staffs appear to be peopled by progressive socialist types, have failed again. The progressive socialist types want the money, without any recognition that the money they want belongs to someone else, who might also have a legitimate use for it, without regard for the progressive socialists working for the bishops.
Note the bishops are supposed to enunciate the moral principles involved in an issue, and then permit the laity to figure out how a problem should be handled. The "permit the laity to figure out how a problem should be handled" is the part that they fail to permit. Their approval of Obamacare until they discovered their disapproval of Obamacare is another evidence of their failure to trust the laity.
The second problem is easily seen. People leave socialist healthcare nations, think Canada and England, where they experience waiting lines, to come here for immediate medical care which can minimize their illnesses and lengthen their lives. This would seem to be an indication that the socialist model - with its waiting lines - is less than optimal.
If we are getting good to great physicians, could it be because they expect to be paid for their skills? In a capitalist country, that seems reasonable. Should those intelligent, driven young people be motivated to seek a career in another field?
It seems relatively well known that doctors are dumping Medicare patients due to the paperwork demands and the poor pay involved in that program. Does anyone assume that Obamacare will be better? Obamacare introduces the waiting line methodology to healthcare in the US. We'll be the same as Canada and Great Britain, which is a great step backwards for the sick.
Note the bishops are supposed to enunciate the moral principles involved in an issue, and then permit the laity to figure out how a problem should be handled. The "permit the laity to figure out how a problem should be handled" is the part that they fail to permit. Their approval of Obamacare until they discovered their disapproval of Obamacare is another evidence of their failure to trust the laity.
The second problem is easily seen. People leave socialist healthcare nations, think Canada and England, where they experience waiting lines, to come here for immediate medical care which can minimize their illnesses and lengthen their lives. This would seem to be an indication that the socialist model - with its waiting lines - is less than optimal.
If we are getting good to great physicians, could it be because they expect to be paid for their skills? In a capitalist country, that seems reasonable. Should those intelligent, driven young people be motivated to seek a career in another field?
It seems relatively well known that doctors are dumping Medicare patients due to the paperwork demands and the poor pay involved in that program. Does anyone assume that Obamacare will be better? Obamacare introduces the waiting line methodology to healthcare in the US. We'll be the same as Canada and Great Britain, which is a great step backwards for the sick.
3.27.2012 | 6:12pm
Mouse says:
Wow, excellent commentary, and frightening. And likely to come true, if things continue as they are. I would add only this: for that a nation that spends millions of dollars every weekend going to watch movies, to have the nerve to even consider rationing, shows how far we are dangling over the pit of hell. We have enough money to help everyone ten times over, we just choose to spend it on other things or hoard it for ourselves. The claim that rationing might be necessary is the kind of lie Dives might have told himself as he stepped over Lazarus. After all, if I give to Lazarus, I might not be able to stuff myself later and wear fine linen, right?
And the Lord God knows this truth, so that those who would ration healthcare while billions are wasted on beer and movies and iPads and iPods will find He has quite a different view of it when they meet Him ONE DAY! But those who think this way tend not to believe in Him in any vital and real way, which is the first part of the problem.
And the Lord God knows this truth, so that those who would ration healthcare while billions are wasted on beer and movies and iPads and iPods will find He has quite a different view of it when they meet Him ONE DAY! But those who think this way tend not to believe in Him in any vital and real way, which is the first part of the problem.
3.27.2012 | 6:19pm
David Nickol says:
Artaban7,
You say: "The above reasons also account for the rationing that will inevitably occur under a government run 'Universal' system, as evidenced by failed Communist attempts of the same."
Most if not all other industrial democracies pay less for health care and get better outcomes, including the ones with national health care services.
You say: "The above reasons also account for the rationing that will inevitably occur under a government run 'Universal' system, as evidenced by failed Communist attempts of the same."
Most if not all other industrial democracies pay less for health care and get better outcomes, including the ones with national health care services.
3.27.2012 | 6:24pm
Jaydee says:
Arteban:
You seem to have missed an important point in the above: that the HHS does not take away from existing Catholic help. But adds to it. And some interesting thingfs follow from that.
By definition therefore? In spite of your constant assurances to the contrary, HHS 1) is doing what you have manifestly not done, 2) in 2,000 years to date.
Your 3) promises of more help than that, moreover, fall flat. It is all too easy to make empty promises; it is another thing entirely, to give up on noble posturing, and actually come up with the support. Jesus warned us that there would be many religious leaders full of huge promises. But we must look to their actual fruits, to see if when push comes to shove, they are coming up with real results. While? What we actually see now, are Conservative Catholics fighting tooth and nail to try to cut down the additional tier of support that HHS would provide, over and above existing secular and religious services. They deliberately, studiously, adamantly, consistently resisting the additional level of support that so far, only HHS has realistically promised to provide.
By the way? I've worked for both Government and religious charities. Both have certain inefficiencies, and and certain amount of (especially recipient) fraud. But overall, I have found government charity to be run far more efficiently. Thanks to better means-testing and so forth.
You seem to have missed an important point in the above: that the HHS does not take away from existing Catholic help. But adds to it. And some interesting thingfs follow from that.
By definition therefore? In spite of your constant assurances to the contrary, HHS 1) is doing what you have manifestly not done, 2) in 2,000 years to date.
Your 3) promises of more help than that, moreover, fall flat. It is all too easy to make empty promises; it is another thing entirely, to give up on noble posturing, and actually come up with the support. Jesus warned us that there would be many religious leaders full of huge promises. But we must look to their actual fruits, to see if when push comes to shove, they are coming up with real results. While? What we actually see now, are Conservative Catholics fighting tooth and nail to try to cut down the additional tier of support that HHS would provide, over and above existing secular and religious services. They deliberately, studiously, adamantly, consistently resisting the additional level of support that so far, only HHS has realistically promised to provide.
By the way? I've worked for both Government and religious charities. Both have certain inefficiencies, and and certain amount of (especially recipient) fraud. But overall, I have found government charity to be run far more efficiently. Thanks to better means-testing and so forth.
3.27.2012 | 7:11pm
Colin Gormley says:
"Most if not all other industrial democracies pay less for health care and get better outcome"
They also have spiking costs and deficit spending. Even in smaller countries like Korea which has the sanest system I've seen (full disclosure, I'm a fiscal conservative AND married to a Korean) still are experiencing budget crunches due to rising health care costs. And they only fund basic care.
They also have spiking costs and deficit spending. Even in smaller countries like Korea which has the sanest system I've seen (full disclosure, I'm a fiscal conservative AND married to a Korean) still are experiencing budget crunches due to rising health care costs. And they only fund basic care.
3.27.2012 | 8:47pm
Howard says:
I think this blog posting assumes that people are more consistent than they really are. It is a very logical working-out of the consequences, only most people are not quite that logical. That fact does not always work against up; sometimes it works in our favor, as it may here.
3.28.2012 | 12:12am
Richard A says:
Better means testing? I work for the government in Michigan, as a programmer supporting the Department of Human Services' main systems for determining eligibility for the various public assistance programs available. We have means testing - and means testers - out the wazoo, and more all the time. That's one of the reasons that administrative overhead is such a big part of government assistance. So there isn't so much 'means testing' of religious charities' distributions? It isn't the public's dime, so who's harmed by it? And Christians would rather be cheated than be ungenerous. There's even a Bible verse about it.
3.28.2012 | 4:22am
Michael PS says:
“we shouldn't renounce our responsibility and turn it all over to the Federal Government”
But the government is the appointee and agent of the people, its actions the consummated result of their own organized wishes. Its actions are an exercise of our responsibility, not an abdication of it.
But the government is the appointee and agent of the people, its actions the consummated result of their own organized wishes. Its actions are an exercise of our responsibility, not an abdication of it.
3.28.2012 | 11:44am
Brian English says:
"By definition therefore? In spite of your constant assurances to the contrary, HHS 1) is doing what you have manifestly not done, 2) in 2,000 years to date."
What in the world are you talking about? You really are unaware of the free medical care that Church affiliated entities and individuals have provided for centuries? Did medical care only start in 1965?
What in the world are you talking about? You really are unaware of the free medical care that Church affiliated entities and individuals have provided for centuries? Did medical care only start in 1965?
3.28.2012 | 1:30pm
Jaydee says:
Brian:
LOGIC Follow the logic, closely: 1) the Catholic Church has done X amount of hospital work. But 2) the HHS health bill, does not subtract from that; but 3) adds a whole new layer of funding. So that?
Conclusion: 4) the HHS plan adds to - does even more than what - the Church has done to date.
Thus 5) the HHS will be improving health care to the poor, even more; even over and above the levels achieved by the Church. The works of teh Church may have been helpful; but HHS will be adding EVEN MORE.
Whatever amount of hospital charity the Church may have contributed to the past? Be it considered great, or small? The HHS will be adding still more, than what you have done to date.
And as it turns out? The additional care offered by government Health care, turns out to be very, very significant. LIkely saving hundreds of thousands - and eventually millions - of lives, that were lost under the current medical gov/religious/for-profit structure.
LOGIC Follow the logic, closely: 1) the Catholic Church has done X amount of hospital work. But 2) the HHS health bill, does not subtract from that; but 3) adds a whole new layer of funding. So that?
Conclusion: 4) the HHS plan adds to - does even more than what - the Church has done to date.
Thus 5) the HHS will be improving health care to the poor, even more; even over and above the levels achieved by the Church. The works of teh Church may have been helpful; but HHS will be adding EVEN MORE.
Whatever amount of hospital charity the Church may have contributed to the past? Be it considered great, or small? The HHS will be adding still more, than what you have done to date.
And as it turns out? The additional care offered by government Health care, turns out to be very, very significant. LIkely saving hundreds of thousands - and eventually millions - of lives, that were lost under the current medical gov/religious/for-profit structure.
3.28.2012 | 2:21pm
Dennis says:
Whenever we use the word "government," try replacing that with "taking from some and giving to others." Catholics should be familiar with the Church's principle of "subsidiarity." This principle advocates addressing problems at the lowest possible level, i.e. the family, parish, community. State and Federal government are statist, high level, big organizations. Remember that these same organizations have caused us to become dependent upon Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, all of which are underfunded and driving our country further into debt. Will healthcare be any different?
Many of our hospitals, orphanages and other charitable organizations were founded upon the Beatitudes (Matthew:5 1-12). That is what Jesus asked us to do. The Ten Commandments (Exodus:20) tell us what not to do, e.g. do not covet our neighbor's goods.
Perhaps we should look to the Bible for God's truth and not look just for verses that support our position. God has given us Christ Jesus. He has made him our wisdom and also our justice, our sanctification, and our redemption. (1 Corinthians 1:27-30). Let us look to God, pray and work for a well informed conscience.
Many of our hospitals, orphanages and other charitable organizations were founded upon the Beatitudes (Matthew:5 1-12). That is what Jesus asked us to do. The Ten Commandments (Exodus:20) tell us what not to do, e.g. do not covet our neighbor's goods.
Perhaps we should look to the Bible for God's truth and not look just for verses that support our position. God has given us Christ Jesus. He has made him our wisdom and also our justice, our sanctification, and our redemption. (1 Corinthians 1:27-30). Let us look to God, pray and work for a well informed conscience.
3.28.2012 | 2:50pm
peg says:
well, Jaydee, I guess that if the HHS insurance mandate holds, the Church will be forced out of the healthcare business. The USG can then expand its altruistic mercies to the large number of patients (15%? 20%?) now receiving care at Catholic hospitals. this should please everyone who finds Catholic participation in and contribution to civil society to be so annoying and intrusive. But then, the Catholic contribution was never enough anyway, was it?
Also, you mentioned having worked at "government charities"---I would argue there is no such thing. If Catholic charities disappear, maybe we will all relearn what "charity" is, or was.
Also, you mentioned having worked at "government charities"---I would argue there is no such thing. If Catholic charities disappear, maybe we will all relearn what "charity" is, or was.
3.28.2012 | 3:15pm
Artaban7 says:
"But the government is the appointee and agent of the people, its actions the consummated result of their own organized wishes. Its actions are an exercise of our responsibility, not an abdication of it." Michael PS
That's a nice political theory on paper (like Communism), but the reality hardly reflects the dream. People on both sides of the political spectrum acknowledge (and complain frequently when the other party's candidate is president) that the reality is far from what you suggest.
Government has become a scapegoat and a crutch. It used to be the case (and still is among some people) that when one's neighbor lost a job they didn't say, "Well, that's what unemployment/welfare/Food Stamps are for, I don't have to sacrifice for them."
Rather, they recognized that they, personally, had a degree of responsibility--to help with rent or utilities, food, helping them find a job, etc.
There is hard data that proves the above claim--notice the veritable extinction of private orphanages after the rise of FDR's welfare state and the Department of Family Services. And there's a growing body of evidence DFS does a worse job at a higher financial cost.
Government welfare has become an excuse that has blinded people to the generosity and charity they owe their neighbors. Government becomes an idol, and the president a false messiah, as they have for many in this culture.
Jaydee, my own experience working for and volunteering with government vs. private healthcare is the opposite of yours. I found the state-run nursing home/hospital (Truman Restorative Center, St. Louis MO) far more inefficient
than the local Catholic hospitals. They did manage to be far more efficient at maiming/amputating people.
Finally, it's interesting that so many military veterans prefer and purchase private health insurance rather than rely on the free medical care provided through the VA. Count among their numbers my uncle and grandpa in Missouri--Marine Corps officers, another uncle in California (former Air Force), and a cousin in Kansas (former Lt. Col. in the Army). They don't share your enthusiasm for government care, Jaydee, though I'm glad your experience appears to be the exception to the rule.
That's a nice political theory on paper (like Communism), but the reality hardly reflects the dream. People on both sides of the political spectrum acknowledge (and complain frequently when the other party's candidate is president) that the reality is far from what you suggest.
Government has become a scapegoat and a crutch. It used to be the case (and still is among some people) that when one's neighbor lost a job they didn't say, "Well, that's what unemployment/welfare/Food Stamps are for, I don't have to sacrifice for them."
Rather, they recognized that they, personally, had a degree of responsibility--to help with rent or utilities, food, helping them find a job, etc.
There is hard data that proves the above claim--notice the veritable extinction of private orphanages after the rise of FDR's welfare state and the Department of Family Services. And there's a growing body of evidence DFS does a worse job at a higher financial cost.
Government welfare has become an excuse that has blinded people to the generosity and charity they owe their neighbors. Government becomes an idol, and the president a false messiah, as they have for many in this culture.
Jaydee, my own experience working for and volunteering with government vs. private healthcare is the opposite of yours. I found the state-run nursing home/hospital (Truman Restorative Center, St. Louis MO) far more inefficient
than the local Catholic hospitals. They did manage to be far more efficient at maiming/amputating people.
Finally, it's interesting that so many military veterans prefer and purchase private health insurance rather than rely on the free medical care provided through the VA. Count among their numbers my uncle and grandpa in Missouri--Marine Corps officers, another uncle in California (former Air Force), and a cousin in Kansas (former Lt. Col. in the Army). They don't share your enthusiasm for government care, Jaydee, though I'm glad your experience appears to be the exception to the rule.
3.28.2012 | 4:03pm
Artaban7 says:
Jaydee:
You seem not to know what you are talking about, or are in dire need of a clarification in your terms. You claim:
"LOGIC Follow the logic, closely: 1) the Catholic Church has done X amount of hospital work. But 2) the HHS health bill, does not subtract from that; but 3) adds a whole new layer of funding. So that?
Conclusion: 4) the HHS plan adds to - does even more than what - the Church has done to date.
Thus 5) the HHS will be improving health care to the poor, even more; even over and above the levels achieved by the Church. "
Please clarify your terms, as the main point of Scalia's article concerns the repercussions of the HHS mandate on contraception, which is very different from the HHS Budget Appropriations Bill, and both are different from "Obamacare"/Universal Healthcare.
If you are talking about the HHS Budget Appropriations Bill, it's actually doing less, not more, as (among other things) it's $700 million smaller than last year's Appropriations. The simple facts prove your claims #4-5 to be false:
1. The HHS Deputy Secretary says HHS will help 21 million people this year.
http://www.hhs.gov/secretary/deputy/speech/fy13budgetoverview.html
Based on old data, the U.S. Catholic Healthcare system still puts HHS to shame, having "More than 16.9 million emergency room visits, more than 92.7 million outpatient visits, and 5,542,314 admissions in a single year."
http://old.usccb.org/healthcare/facts.shtml
2. If you are talking about the HHS Contraception Mandate, however, and not the budget bill, we are talking about something that is actually harmful to human health in many ways, as we're now expected to fund as a primary priority drugs (birth control pills) which cause cancer, depression, environmental damage (numerous studies finding damage to fish and frog populations from pill remnants in urine), and plain fail to work 5% of the time.
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/birthcontrolfailure.html
The book “The Detox Diet” by Dr. Elson Haas states that one-third of Americans smoke. Women who both smoke and take oral birth control are at 35 times the risk of developing cancer as those who don’t.
This is hardly the panacea you make it out to be…Why would anyone that cares about the women they love ask them to take such risks? That's not healthcare.
You seem not to know what you are talking about, or are in dire need of a clarification in your terms. You claim:
"LOGIC Follow the logic, closely: 1) the Catholic Church has done X amount of hospital work. But 2) the HHS health bill, does not subtract from that; but 3) adds a whole new layer of funding. So that?
Conclusion: 4) the HHS plan adds to - does even more than what - the Church has done to date.
Thus 5) the HHS will be improving health care to the poor, even more; even over and above the levels achieved by the Church. "
Please clarify your terms, as the main point of Scalia's article concerns the repercussions of the HHS mandate on contraception, which is very different from the HHS Budget Appropriations Bill, and both are different from "Obamacare"/Universal Healthcare.
If you are talking about the HHS Budget Appropriations Bill, it's actually doing less, not more, as (among other things) it's $700 million smaller than last year's Appropriations. The simple facts prove your claims #4-5 to be false:
1. The HHS Deputy Secretary says HHS will help 21 million people this year.
http://www.hhs.gov/secretary/deputy/speech/fy13budgetoverview.html
Based on old data, the U.S. Catholic Healthcare system still puts HHS to shame, having "More than 16.9 million emergency room visits, more than 92.7 million outpatient visits, and 5,542,314 admissions in a single year."
http://old.usccb.org/healthcare/facts.shtml
2. If you are talking about the HHS Contraception Mandate, however, and not the budget bill, we are talking about something that is actually harmful to human health in many ways, as we're now expected to fund as a primary priority drugs (birth control pills) which cause cancer, depression, environmental damage (numerous studies finding damage to fish and frog populations from pill remnants in urine), and plain fail to work 5% of the time.
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/birthcontrolfailure.html
The book “The Detox Diet” by Dr. Elson Haas states that one-third of Americans smoke. Women who both smoke and take oral birth control are at 35 times the risk of developing cancer as those who don’t.
This is hardly the panacea you make it out to be…Why would anyone that cares about the women they love ask them to take such risks? That's not healthcare.
3.28.2012 | 5:16pm
Brian English says:
"Thus 5) the HHS will be improving health care to the poor, even more; even over and above the levels achieved by the Church."
You keep talking about poor people, but actual poor people are covered by Medicaid. Dealing with uninsured people is a diffefrent issue, and it didn't require the federal government to seize control of the healthcare system.
"The additional care offered by government Health care, turns out to be very, very significant. LIkely saving hundreds of thousands - and eventually millions - of lives, that were lost under the current medical gov/religious/for-profit structure."
I appear to have missed all of these people dying in the streets. And if Obamacare is going to save so many lives, why didn't they make it effective immediately, instead of pushing most of its provisions off until after the 2012 election?
You keep talking about poor people, but actual poor people are covered by Medicaid. Dealing with uninsured people is a diffefrent issue, and it didn't require the federal government to seize control of the healthcare system.
"The additional care offered by government Health care, turns out to be very, very significant. LIkely saving hundreds of thousands - and eventually millions - of lives, that were lost under the current medical gov/religious/for-profit structure."
I appear to have missed all of these people dying in the streets. And if Obamacare is going to save so many lives, why didn't they make it effective immediately, instead of pushing most of its provisions off until after the 2012 election?
3.28.2012 | 6:56pm
Steve says:
Bottom line; allowing the government to control health-care has such a potential for abuse that it seems to great a risk.
3.29.2012 | 10:15am
Maureen from Canada says:
Speaking as a Canadian with our 'wonderful' health care system, beware of what you ask for.
Yes, I have 'access' to health care if I can find a family physician. Fortunately I have a family physician, but other then sending me for routine tests and prescriptions, that is about all she can do. She can refer me to a specialist and then I wait. In July 2011 I was referred to a specialized to talk about my crappy knees. That wait was 5 months. The surgeon put me on the waitlist for knee replacement surgery in December and I was told don't expect anything for 12 months (so maybe Dec 2012). Last week I had another appointment with him and was informed that the waitlist was still 12 months but don't expect anything until spring of 2013 because the system decided to close three operating rooms because of budget cuts. So 18 months later I MIGHT get knee replacement surgery that I have paid for through my taxes. Can I go outside the system to get surgery if I was willing to pay for it myself - only if I travel to the US - there is no parallel system in Canada because that would be 'unfair' to those that can't afford it. But somehow it is deemed 'fair' for me to be in constant pain and having to limited the jobs I take (I'm self employed) and reduce my usefullness to society so that we can have some system that is perceived to be 'fair'
Health care in Canada is rationed over and over and over again and decisions are made on who is 'worthy' for treatment by bureaucrats, not by doctors, not by individuals who need the service, but by someone sitting in an office at the provincial health department!!!
Yes, I have 'access' to health care if I can find a family physician. Fortunately I have a family physician, but other then sending me for routine tests and prescriptions, that is about all she can do. She can refer me to a specialist and then I wait. In July 2011 I was referred to a specialized to talk about my crappy knees. That wait was 5 months. The surgeon put me on the waitlist for knee replacement surgery in December and I was told don't expect anything for 12 months (so maybe Dec 2012). Last week I had another appointment with him and was informed that the waitlist was still 12 months but don't expect anything until spring of 2013 because the system decided to close three operating rooms because of budget cuts. So 18 months later I MIGHT get knee replacement surgery that I have paid for through my taxes. Can I go outside the system to get surgery if I was willing to pay for it myself - only if I travel to the US - there is no parallel system in Canada because that would be 'unfair' to those that can't afford it. But somehow it is deemed 'fair' for me to be in constant pain and having to limited the jobs I take (I'm self employed) and reduce my usefullness to society so that we can have some system that is perceived to be 'fair'
Health care in Canada is rationed over and over and over again and decisions are made on who is 'worthy' for treatment by bureaucrats, not by doctors, not by individuals who need the service, but by someone sitting in an office at the provincial health department!!!
3.29.2012 | 2:50pm
Jaydee says:
No one can refute those who oppose HHS; we're not allowed to, by the religious censors.
3.29.2012 | 3:17pm
Artaban7 says:
Jaydee, you are, in a sense, correct in recognizing that facts are irrefutable.
But where are the "religious censors" you speak of? Censorship is the suppression of speech.
Your errors have been refuted, and the proper outside citation provided to prove your error. That is not censorship.
You've been allowed to make your points. No one has stopped them from being posted. I'm sorry if your ego has been bruised, but there has been no censorship here.
But where are the "religious censors" you speak of? Censorship is the suppression of speech.
Your errors have been refuted, and the proper outside citation provided to prove your error. That is not censorship.
You've been allowed to make your points. No one has stopped them from being posted. I'm sorry if your ego has been bruised, but there has been no censorship here.
4.5.2012 | 4:17am
janet says:
This ACA (Affordable Care Act) is only a diversion. There is somewhat of a contradiction coming from conservatives, it seems to me, in that they seem to be worried that health care will be rationed, and they never tire of telling us that Medicare is too expensive and must be scaled back.
You said that after Cheney got his heart transplant, it came under fire from "some" who said he was too old to waste a transplant on. Some? Who? Were these responsible people in the Obama administration? Were they anonymous people on the street? I could start a statement with "Some say..." and finish it with anything. "Some say all muslims are terrorists." "Some say Stalin was the greatest genius of all time." If you are going to build an argument from the opinions of certain people, they should be identified.
About Cheney's heart transplant...I do hope the new one would dissuade him from sanctioning the torture of unique human beings for expedient political goals. Here's where I greatly admire John McCain. He strongly opposed any use of torture, no matter what the rational. Why? Because he had been tortured, of course!
The other side of the coin concerning "Obamacare," of course, is that it is at least an attempt to provide health care coverage for tens of millions of Americans who don't have it now. And each one of those people who have little access to modern health care are unique individuals with their own story. Like my friend who was just diagnosed with breast cancer. She is a hasidic Jew, the child of Polish holocaust survivors. She is single, her family are mostly all dead, and she is as poor as a church mouse. She cannot afford any serious medical treatment of her cancer, and is now experimenting with dietary supplements in the hope that they might help. Maybe Obamacare is coming too late for her. But, in all fairness, keep in mind that there are two sides to every story.