The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
What the church teaches on health care reform
by Richard McBrien on Oct. 05, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionAnyone with a newspaper subscription or an Internet connection does not lack for opinions about the legislation on health-care reform working through Congress.
The point and purpose of this week's column, however, is not to advocate in favor of one or another proposed bill, but to make sure that Catholics and other interested readers know what the official teaching of the Catholic church is -- not on any of the specific proposals, but on the key moral elements of any reform of the health-care system in the United States.
Bishop William Murphy, head of the Diocese of Rockville Centre, New York, and chair of the U. S. Bishops' Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, gave the essence of the church's position in a letter to members of Congress, dated July 17, an excerpt of which was cited in an editorial in the National Catholic Reporter, "The right to health care" (9/18/09):
"Reform efforts must begin with the principle that decent health care is not a privilege, but a right and a requirement to protect the life and dignity of every person. ... The bishops' conference believes health care reform should be truly universal and it should be genuinely affordable" (italics in original).
The teaching that health care is a right rather than a privilege was articulated by Pope John XXIII in his encyclical, Pacem in Terris (Peace on Earth), published less than two months before his death on June 3, 1963.
The pope began that encyclical with a list of rights, the first set of which pertained to the right to life and a worthy standard of living. Included in these rights were the right to "food, clothing, shelter, medical care, rest and finally the necessary social services" (n. 11; my italics).
Pope John Paul II included health insurance in a list of "the rights of workers," alongside social security, pensions, and compensation in the case of accidents, in his own encyclical, Centesimus Annus (The Hundreth Year), n. 15, on the centenary of Pope Leo XIII's landmark encyclical, Rerum Novarum (Of New Things), which had been published in 1891.
Among the major thrusts of John Paul II's encyclical were its concern for the poor and its explicit endorsement of the so-called "preferential option for the poor" (n. 11). Thus, when we are reminded that there are almost 50 million Americans without health insurance, and that some 30 million of these are children, we can begin to appreciate the moral urgency of health-care reform.
But there are many Americans -- Catholics included -- who are satisfied with their own private insurance plans (in spite of continually rising premiums) or with their government-run Medicare or Medicaid. They oppose health-care reform because they worry that it will somehow put at risk what they currently have.
Therefore, when it comes to providing universal health insurance, they balk. They ask, why should our tax dollars go to support people (many of whom are African-American and Hispanic-American) who, in their minds, are responsible for their own health care?
There may be operating here a kind of Social Darwinism ("God helps those who help themselves") that is directly at odds with Catholic social teaching and the demands of the Gospel itself. It is a mentality encapsulated in the crack, "I'm up, pull up the ladder."
A Catholic has only to note the many references to health care in the U. S. Bishops' pastoral letter, "Economic Justice for All" (1986): nn. 86, 90, 103, 191, 212, 230, 247, and 286.
In the same bishops' annual Labor Day statement released early last month, Bishop Murphy wrote on their behalf: "The Catholic bishops continue to work for health care that is accessible, affordable and respects the life and dignity of every human being from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death."
Indeed, he continued, "Health care is an essential good for every human person. In a society like ours, no one should lack access to decent health care."
Accordingly, he urged every Catholic "to join the bishops in advocating for health care reform that is truly universal and protects human life at every stage of development" (Origins, 9/17/09).
The Catechism of the Catholic Church had also supported health care for those without access to it: "Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance" (n. 2288, my italics).
Official Catholic teaching on this issue is not in question. Catholic attitudes are.
© 2009 Richard P. McBrien. All rights reserved. Fr. McBrien is the Crowley-O'Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame.
Dear Fr. McBrien, Thank you
Dear Fr. McBrien, Thank you for your essay. Of course the Catholic Church supports health care as defined by your essay. How does a nation accomplish it's goal? There are too many greedy companies looking for their slice of the pie to make health care truly affordable! At present a four day stay in our local hospital costs an average of 17,000 dollars. My wife had a six hour stay in this hospital to have her gall bladder removed and it cost over 18,000 dollars. Three thousand dollars per hour! Certainly we all have a right to affordable health care but how do we go about it? The corruption in our medical care has to cease but how do we do it??
The unconscionable
The unconscionable obstructionism regarding health care is captured in two quotes: One by J. K. Galbraith, "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
The other is by Ralph Waldo Emerson. "We are reformers in spring and summer; in autumn and witner we stand by the old -- reformers in the morning, conservatives at night. Reform is affirmative, conservatism is negative; conservatism goes for comfort, reform for truth."
Unfortunately all of these
Unfortunately all of these goals may be impeded simply because politicians, typically democrats, will not accept specific prohibitions of funding for abortion.
O, the excuses to which some
O, the excuses to which some will go to deny health care to folks in need.
We deal with political reality as it is, not as we would like it.
As a retiree once told a group of us, life is not fair. A fair is a fancy country picnic!
If we believe that adequate health care is a basic human right, then we pursue this goal, and then --- recognizing the pluralistic nature of our society --- we try to change hearts to recognize the humanity of the unborn child.
We've had no real success in the abortion debate since 1973, but we do have the opportunity to see genuine health care reform in the near future.
While we continue to inform human conscience, we can press our legislators to enact real legislation to help people in need.
If there is no provisions for
If there is no provisions for abortion to be covered under this plan, then why do amendments to specifically prohibit it keep failing? Why wouldn't they just say yes to them to appease pro-life legislators and get their support if it was a meaningless amendment. If there was no means to fund abortions, then it wouldn't matter. If it does matter, then there is measures that can lead to funding abortion. The questions is that if health-care is so important, why can't the democrats stand up against the abortion lobby.
The alarming number of
The alarming number of teenage mothers who do not survive the birth process came out here in Mexico today, a larger number than last year.
Legislation cannot stop abortions; they will take place no matter what.
Let us consider the life of the mother as well.
Do not therefore label me anti-catholic, as I most definitely am a practicing Roman Catholic. I only ask let us weigh as well the life of the mother, and leave it up to our moral theologians.
Read for one the Reverend Father Charles Curran.
Do you pay taxes? Do you not thereby support abortion?
just wondering
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
So since you say we cannot
So since you say we cannot stop abortions, should we then just let them happen? Fr. Curran is an outright heretic and dissenter, he should be opposed along with anything he says. Praying for the day liberal Catholics are completely driven from the Church
Dear Cani, This is for me
Dear Cani, This is for me certainly startling news, as I find the writings of the Reverend Father Charles Curran most thoughtful and informative, and helpful in tackling these very difficult issues, very serious intellectual and academic exercises based solidly in our Faith.
I notice you do not address the questions posed. What about the life of the mother, when it is placed in peril, as can happen (see the nine year olf in Brazil recently in the news)? I ask you further to indicate what specific official Vatican documents call the Reverend Father Charles Curran "an outright heretic" as you do. Do you write this upon your own personal authority? In such a case kindly indicate which of ihs writings you discover thus, and why, not simply "anything he says." What also is your definition of a "liberal Catholic" and why so driven from this Mystical Body?
alarmed I remain
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
You ask: "So since you say we
You ask:
"So since you say we cannot stop abortions, should we then just let them happen?"
This is not at all what I say at any point. I ask you what would you do to stop them. It seems the more effective method than outlawing (which was the situation before Roe v. Wade, when women died horribly from self-administered abortions) would be to provide accessible and universal health care for one thing, as in civilized nations of this earth, as well as jobs with living wages (notice the Republican blockage of appointing the relevant officers to ur US Dept. of Labor), etc. This would quikly heal the hemorrage of abortions. No one desires "abortions on demand" anymore than people freely embrace the ultimately desperate measure of suicide; only the very desperate seek it. A baby is a joy for all. Remove the reasons for desperation and fill people with the audacity of hope, and abortion melts like the snow in May.
I pray it is not now too late.
Legislation never stopped abortions.
The Seamless Garment does.
"I ask you what would you do
"I ask you what would you do to stop [abortions]."
Frere Charles, you've asked what may be the central question that needs to be asked of bishops (Burke et al) who essentially condemn efforts to build a consensus on reducing abortions (as you've noted, they will never be eliminated). Indeed, if we were to picture a situation where a woman approaches AB Burke in Rome and says she is pregnant and wants an abortion, just what would this "pro-life" bishop tell her? What would he do?
If the recent episcopal sex scandal coverups are any indication, I think too many of these hierarchs are "big on words" but not "big on action," that is, on dealing with the nitty-gritty reality of abortion in the "here and now." I suspect these bishops would have a difficult, if not impossible, time relating to a fearful woman who feels she has no alternative but to procure an abortion.
I'm not at all convinced these Catholic hierarchs could be "another Christ" in such an up-front scenario.
Conservative columnist David
Conservative columnist David Brooks spoke for me and many other pro-life folks when he wrote (NYT 10/09/09): "At this point people like me could throw up our hands and oppose everything. But that's not what adulthood is about. In the real world, you often don't get to choose what your options will be. You have to choose from a few bad options. The real health care choice now is between the status quo and [moving forward to provide health care to people in need --- even if any resulting law doesn't do everything we want it to do]."
You are not far from having
You are not far from having your prayer answered.
May thier sould be on your head.
After all Jesus WAS a liberal. But you will never believe that will you?
"...why can't the democrats
"...why can't the democrats stand up against the abortion lobby?"
Wrong question.
Why can't Catholics --- all of us --- recognize the political reality and work within this picture to assure health care for all people in need?
Getting health care reform need not and will not stop our pro-life efforts.
"Getting health care reform
"Getting health care reform need not and will not stop our pro-life efforts."
Indeed, health care reform that provides government-funded abortions and questionable end-of-life practices will only serve to create more work for the committed pro-lifers. This is not the sort of "help" we need.
Go to
Go to http://www.factcheck.org
I'd be very surprised (and, yes, alarmed) if final legislation were to include "government-funded abortions and questionable end-of-life practices."
And I've been solidly pro-life since at least 1975 and strongly support much needed health care reform.
May I kindly suggest that you
May I kindly suggest that you take your own advice?
See http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-is-fabricating/
and http://factcheck.org/2009/09/obamas-health-care-speech/
This Congress and this President has not hidden the fact that they are interested in making abortion more accessible, not less.
There are no "questionable
There are no "questionable end-of-life practices" anywhere in these bills before congress. The fact that people don't quite saying so rather tips their hand that they just don't want healthcare reform period!
Actually better access to
Actually better access to health care will reduce the number of abortions dramatically. Just see.
Denying healthcare to poor pregnant women is an impetus to abortion.
Can you provide some
Can you provide some statistics that show how many abortions are procured because the mother and father did not have access to health care?
each one
each one
There is no provision for
There is no provision for payment for abortion in any of the bills.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-is-fabricating/
As for other types of abortions, the Capps amendment leaves it to the secretary of Health and Human Services to decide whether or not they will be covered. It says, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing" abortion services that would not be legal for Medicaid coverage. Says the NRLC’s Johnson: "The Capps Amendment MANDATES that the public plan cover any Medicaid-fundable abortions, and AUTHORIZES the secretary to cover all other abortions. … [F]rom day one, she [Secretary Kathleen Sebelius] is authorized to pay for them all. And, she will."
We can’t say what anyone will do in the future. But Obama himself said on July 17, 2007, that "[i]n my mind, reproductive care is essential care" and would be covered by his public insurance plan. He was addressing Planned Parenthood:
And just what does the Capps
And just what does the Capps Amendment amend? There are multiple bills out there and nothing settled yet.
Father McBrien, I'm so glad
Father McBrien, I'm so glad you have finally found something about the Church with which you actually agree! I'm equally happy to know you can actually quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church without criticizing it.
You correctly state, "Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance." However, the Catechism does not offer specific instructions as to how this is to come about. The Church's stance on health care does not necessarily mean an endorsement of any specific plan, especially "Obamacare."
So, what's your point of writing this article other than to surreptitiously suggest that the President's plan has moral authority to it?
There wasn't anything
There wasn't anything surreptitious about it. The president's goal to provide universal healthcare has the backing of the US bishops. That does not mean that the US bishops agree with every point in specific plans to that end. What it does mean is that Catholics who oppose healthcare reform on the basis of "every man for himself" is opposed to Catholic social teaching. Indeed, I thought his point was very plain. Too bad you didn't get it.
With maybe less than a
With maybe less than a handful of exceptions, I don't see the "loyal opposition" doing anything to support health care reform.
Republican fearmongers and naysayers: that's all I've seen to date.
And I'm an Independent, not a Democrat.
Dear TheNonCatholic, Kindly
Dear TheNonCatholic,
Kindly list those areas in which the leading English speaking North American Roman Catholic scholar and theologian, the Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien, fails in your august assessment to "actually agree" with the Church whose history, papacy and essence he has objectively and academically written the standard texts, in English.
List as well specifically your critical evidence supporting your statement "I'm equally happy to know you can actually quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church without criticizing it." as well as your position for finding your happiness or not within this.
I cannot help now but recall the immortal words of the oft-quoted WB Yeats, here from his prayer for his daughter:
"For arrogance and hatred are the wares // Peddled in the thoroughfares."
The President's original aspiration has all moral authority: to provide everyone in this land with accessible, universal health care, replacing the exclusively mercenary and monopolistic and immoral and dysfunctional system mandated by Richard Nixon (see Mr. Michael Moore's Sicko) to turn a basic human need of everyone with a human body for health care into just another reliable means for the Wall Street bankers to squeeze out their blood money.
Why do you tihnk they are so politically eager for every conception to come to full term? It is more money in their bloody pockets.
Perhaps you would do well to read up on actual Roman Catholic Moral Theology, and this present article by the Reverend and wise Father Richard P. McBrien is a wonderful place to start.
"I was sick and you demanded my insurance card."
"A stranger and you denied me sanctuary."
"Imprisoned and you refused to liberate me."
I just want to make sure I
I just want to make sure I understand this: "The President's original aspiration has all moral authority" because why? Because you truly understand his heart? Because it's not at all possible that his "solution" is offered for reasons other than he is just a great guy doing God's work? Because there are no other solutions than his? Becasue it is evil to sugggest that a solution that has not only failed to produce the required results in other industrialized nations, but made things worse, is in fact counter-productive to your goal of universal health care? Because it's not a Catholic position to think that its not always the government's job to provide everything to its people and perhaps that void is where charity comes in?
The problem with folks like yourself is you are indoctrinated. I say that Obama's and the Democrats' solution is wrong and your hear: "I want sick people to die." Open your ears! We are debating the means not the desired outcome. Fact is you are wrong. Your solution will INCREASE suffering and misery, not decrease it. You, sir, are a usefull idiot.
Bill kindly calls me: "You,
Bill kindly calls me: "You, sir, are a usefull idiot." and a double ll one to boot!
With Saint Francis of Assisi I strive to be an idiot in the interest of the poor, the abandoned, the rejected, the refused, the ill, the leper in our midst and in exile, those who have no medical insurance and thus must die by our present for-profit only system.
At least with the public plan even the poor could choose life!
Yes, sir. You, sir, are correct. Thank you!
DEO GRATIAS
"Sick, and you required my insurance cards."
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
If you hadn't noticed, the
If you hadn't noticed, the president has laid out some general parameters but is leaving Congress to come up with the plan/bill. There is no Obamacare except in the minds of some people. What is being pointed out by this article is that a lot of Catholics, mostly conservatives, don't want healthcare reform and now that we are the nearest to obtaining it as we have ever been, the bishops are saying they are for it. It only stands to reason that all the catholics who listen to the authority of Mother Church/Rome should be backing the idea of reform rather than trying to blast it away. It seems some people who tell us more liberal folks to do as the Church says or go to the Episcopal Church ought to be doing a little more of that obeying Rome themselves.
Some of those Catholic
Some of those Catholic attitudes in question are quite publicly modeled by a few rather noisy bishops. Don't Catholic clergy receive instruction in Catholic social teaching? I would have to believe that, at this point in time, laity are much more well informed on Catholic social teaching!
It's important to note, for
It's important to note, for the sake of completeness, that there is nothing in the Church's teaching that suggests that it is the role of government alone to provide universal health care. There are other means to achieving this very noble end, as demonstrated by the numerous Catholic hospitals and clinics that serve those in need.
Additionally, it's also worth noting that most of the opposition to the bills currently before Congress is because of their lack of protections for the unborn. Any and all attempts to explicitly exclude abortion from government-run or government-financed health care have been soundly defeated. Most who oppose the current bills agree that health care reform is needed; just not in the form that has been presented thus far.
I disagree that most of the
I disagree that most of the negativity for the bills being worked on (as no bill is actually finished - they are just through various committees) is due to the abortion debate. In the town hall meetings it was the so-called but untrue death panels, the fear of paying more money, the fear of a one-payer government run system and the fear of losing Medicare that had people riled up. I sure didn't hear the town hall people or the tea party group rallying behind the abortion banner.
Boring article. Richard
Boring article. Richard McBrien has always been a Church Teaching=Democratic Party platform kind of guy.
Sorry Fr. McBrien, Pope John
Sorry Fr. McBrien, Pope John XXIII, and Pope JPII, but food, clothing, shelter, health care, rest and the necessary social services are NOT absolute rights, not like the right to life. As we learned in Genesis 3:17-19...
" 17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."
...We have the right to work for these other so-called rights, but no man able to work has the right to sit on his fat ass and demand his right to food, clothing, shelter, etc.
You are assuming everyone
You are assuming everyone without health insurance are just people who "sit on his fat ass and demand his right"? I think that is a very judgemental and ignorant thing to say. You'd better look at reality as you are not even close to correct with this statement.
And I think that os a very
And I think that os a very ignorant thing to assume. You and JJ need to learn to read. Even Pope John Paul II agrees with me as he is referring to workers rights when he talks about the right to health care. My statement is correct; what you and JJ assumed/inferred incorrectly from what I said is the non-reality.
If one has the right to life,
If one has the right to life, then by extension one has the right to the essential means necessary for life, i.e. health care among other things. Also, right is not entitlement. Give up your Calvinistic, republican, boot-strap philosophy. A quote more relevant than any from Genesis is from Jesus: "What do you have that has not been given to you?"
"...but no man able to work
"...but no man able to work has the right to sit on his fat ass and demand his right to food, clothing, shelter, etc."
Yes, and what's your point about the Lord's request to help people in need?
(I'd also be embarrassed to use my actual name if I had posted your comments.)
I'm not embarrassed at all.
I'm not embarrassed at all. What's embarrassing is you quoting my post and then not saying anything to refute it. I stand by everything I said in my post that you quoted; what exactly in my post do you disagree with? I don't even know how to respond to you since you asked me such an irrelevant question...
"Yes, and what's your point about the Lord's request to help people in need?
...well, considering I didn't make any point about the Lord's request to help other people in need, I don't know. If you had asked what I thought about the Lord's request to help other people in need, I would have said that I agree with the Lord 100%. I anxiously await your revised comments so I can respond to you since you obviously are in need of clarification for your confusion.
My point is that in a
My point is that in a religious publication, you offered comments totally ignoring basic Christian teaching that we help people in need.
Indeed, you describe all such people as "fat asses" somehow "demanding" basic necessities of life. In other words, "JDS", you jump from "some" to "all," that is, all people in need are (in your opinion) "fat asses," i.e., lazy and, by implication, to be held in contempt. You commit the fallacy of "hasty generalization" (to borrow from an old Logic text).
The simple fact, JDS, is that we live in a society that doesn't give a damn for people in need. In such a society, it stands to reason that Christians would "demand" social justice including adequate health care for such folks. Our faith would require us to take the initiative to assure that government policies not ignore people in need.
You claim you would agree "with the Lord 100%."
In light of your comments, I suspect you'd have a hard time convincing me and other folks here of the sincerity of such belief --- unless, of course, you subscribe to the warped view that "the Lord helps those who help themselves."
It's easy for me to understand in this instance how an anonymous blogger --- aka "JDS" --- would feel comfortable asserting, "I'm not embarrassed at all....I stand by everything I said in my post that you quoted."
If I asserted unchristian views, I'd want to remain anonymous, too!
JJ, Where there's a clesr
JJ,
Where there's a clesr case of the pot calling the kettle black. I said and you quoted me saying...
"...but no man able to work has the right to sit on his fat ass and demand his right to food, clothing, shelter, etc."
...and yet when I ask you to clarify what exactly you disagreed with me, you misquote me by saying...
"Indeed, you describe all such people as "fat asses""
...Now I clearly did no such thing! Worse yet is that you have the audacity to falsely accuse me of what you have just done...
" You commit the fallacy of "hasty generalization" (to borrow from an old Logic text)."
...JJ, you borrowing from/referring to an old logic text is about as incongruous as Obama quoting scripture as he rationalizes killing the unborn! You can't even read let alone use logic in your arguments!
Next you say, and I quote...
"The simple fact, JDS, is that we live in a society that doesn't give a damn for people in need."
...now gee, JJ, wouldn't that be a "hasty generalization"? Not to mention an inaccurate "fact". Our American society is by any measure the most generous and charitable society on earth. And our govt has many, many programs for those in need, for example, Medicaid, Medicare, CHIPS, Food Stamps, WICK, ADC, etc.
And what is with you about my anonymity? Just because you post under the name of Joseph Jaglowicz doesn't make you any less anonymous in this forum. You accuse me of asserting un-Christian views, but yet you never identify anything that I posted that was un-Christian. False accusations would certainly qualify as un-Christian, so perhaps you should take your own advice and become more anonymous.
"...no man able to work..." I
"...no man able to work..."
I wasn't the only one to catch your implied jumping from "some" to "all" to describe people in need of health care as "fat ass[es]."
Don't try to weasel out of your implied message.
As for your cites of Medicaid, Medicare, CHIPS, Food Stamps, WICK, ADC, etc., these programs are barely able to hold their own. On the other hand, we've seen tax cuts for the rich and billions spent (and wasted) on military spending. We see a Republican opposition to ANY health care reform even though these legislators enjoy the most generous health insurance coverage available anywhere among the American population.
Use your real name so folks who DO know you can see for themselves the kind of views you have shared with the rest of us who do not know you.
JJ, I'm not trying to weasel
JJ,
I'm not trying to weasel out of my message, which was...
"...We have the right to work for these other so-called rights, but no man able to work has the right to sit on his fat ass and demand his right to food, clothing, shelter, etc."
...although you inferred incorrectly as I did not imply as you posted...
"your implied jumping from "some" to "all" to describe people in need of health care as "fat ass[es]."
...Please address what I actually say rather than what you falsely infer from what I actually say!
But thank you for making my point...
"As for your cites of Medicaid, Medicare, CHIPS, Food Stamps, WICK, ADC, etc., these programs are barely able to hold their own."
...yes they are as are most government run programs so why in the world would you want to give the government control over 1/6th of our economy?
"Please address what I
"Please address what I actually say rather than what you falsely infer from what I actually say."
OK, let's go back to your original comment that drew critcism from me and others, to wit: "but no man able to work has the right to sit on his fat ass and demand his right to food, clothing, shelter, etc."
Please address how this comment relates to the proposed legislation that would extend adequate health care to folks currently without it.
Thank you.
Fr McBrien's point in this
Fr McBrien's point in this column seems to be that Catholic concern for protection of the unborn does not extend to protection for the already born in far too many cases.
I just wanted to clarify that
I just wanted to clarify that my below entry was in response to JDS, your response (which I agree with) was not yet up.
I think the point as Father
I think the point as Father McBrien has already said, is the basic moral principle of right rather than privilege. If this is not grasped, all is lost.
I was one of those uninsured children in America. I was plagued with chronic illness for my first 28 years. A relationship to a doctor and simple screening could have prevented this personal, and societal cost. I moved to Italy at age 28, and with my initial status as a legal resident I was able to see specialists for free, do extensive and affordable testing and discover that I have the autoimmune disease called Celiac.
After living with public health care for 16 years now, enjoying an energy in midlife that I didn’t have in my 20’s, I am at a complete loss as how to explain to Italians why American’s don’t want to improve their lot. I had thorough prenatal care and enjoyed having the option of going to a hospital that specialized in natural child birth, including 24 hours in a private family room, before moving to the maternity ward, for free, our family receives free house calls from our doctor when necessary, and we can very comfortably afford the cost of preventive testing and our yearly health care tax. Family doctors are on duty 5 days a week, and on weekends and holidays every town has a 24 hour doctor on call. ANY WOMAN in Italy has a legal right to all pre-natal/birth/after birth healthcare for free, no questions asked, meaning she does not have to prove that she has “legal” status because she is practicing A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. My Italian husband’s memory of an American hospital is having passed out (unable to walk back to the car with me) on the floor in between the double set of hospital entrance doors, with wind and snow of a Boston storm blowing on him every time the door opened, while I drove home in a blizzard to get his insurance policy, so that he could “legally” enter into the emergency room and “get a place on the line”. I can testify that America is admired for many reasons from this side of the Atlantic, but our health care policy makes Europeans feel pity for us at best, and that there are some serious limits to our wonderful democracy.
Dear Stephanie, Thank you
Dear Stephanie, Thank you very much for this important testimony. The people so virulently and loudly opposing health care for America als oppose Mr. Michael Moore, whose documentary Sicko nears similar testimony to yours coming from England, France and Canada. In England in vain he searches a hospital for a billing department, and finds only a cashier who hands out money instead of taking it in.
Here in Mexico several seniors come to fill their prescriptions at more affordable prices, and to get their dental and eye and other health needs attended to. What is wrong with the USA, which makes it all for-profit only, with no concern for the human person?
Thank you for sharing
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
Dear Frère Charles du
Dear Frère Charles du Désert,
Thank you for your heartfelt note and (below entry) prayer. I too pray for the same. Your question about America saddens me, because it is also my own question. (For those who live between America and another culture this lack of care for human beings and resistance to change touches home all the more.) I suspect this lacking has to do with our roots of violence, we have not yet overcome the shadows of massacring the Indians or enslaving Africans, that spirit is still with us as is evident in much of our foreign policy, as anyone living outside of America can easily attest to. What I feel in my heart is that we are at a crossroads. The planet and humanity cannot sustain much more insult. America has a key role not only because it is the most powerful nation but because it’s irresponsible wars, greed and environmental destruction have created a fair amount of the enormous dilemmas we now face as a globe on the brink. What does this have to do with health care? Health care is a debate, about our morals, about how we may navigate them, about who we are: our moral authority and the congruency between our ideals and how we actually care for our own people, about the road we are about to take. THIS IS THE MOMENT TO FACE THE PAST. The thought that one party could throw health care off the tracks, simply to throw Obama off his tracks, so that they can gain power again seems not like politics to me but SHEER EXERCISE OF POWER, GREED AND IGNORANCE: SELF DESTRUCTIVENESS IN ACTION. This is the history we are better off not repeating. I know that we are worthy of and capable of much more, I am also so proud of our democracy and many civic achievements, and I think that now is the moment to use our voice and ask America to show it’s best self. I don’t need American health care, I live in Italy, but I know what Americans are missing because the bottom line of my Italian health care is the human being and this has brought me health and security. This is something I would like to share with America. I thoroughly enjoy reading your comments, thank you for all the love and compassion you express.
gratie and please say Hi! to
gratie and please say Hi! to Subiaco for me!
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
Dear charles du desert, Our
Dear charles du desert, Our great President George W Bush in his infinite wisdom told us a few years ago that we could not buy drugs in Canada because they were not F D A approved! What his Highness failed to tell us: Canada had negotiated a contract with U S Pharmacuetical Companies to purchase their drugs at 10% of the cost that Purchasers in the U S pay for the same drugs! When one thinks about it one will realize that all drugs come out of the ground. God has gifted our planet Earth with plentiful resources and once again Man/Woman in our infinite greed have taken what God has given to all earthlings and converted them into profit,profit,profit!!! And we all know the workings of the Pharmacuetical Companies through every election cycle!! How do we put an end to this GREED??
This is a link to health care
This is a link to health care testimonials made by Americans living in Italy: http://www.youtube.com/user/userAirConnect#
Clearly, every respondent
Clearly, every respondent here who balks over the lack of abortion prohibition in health care reform proposals has failed to grasp that simply being able to take getting medical care for granted will reduce abortion. It's not just because it's legal that they do it.
"[T]he numerous Catholic
"[T]he numerous Catholic hospitals and clinics that serve those in need" rely on private insurance and/or public assistance to serve these people. I have to wonder how much money Catholic and public institutions lose because of their service to folks without some kind of insurance.
If we really care about assuring adequate health care to people in need, we will support legislation toward this end. We will not use the abortion controversy as an excuse to stall legislation and ultimately prevent its passage.
We deal with the reality of a pluralistic society, not with some idealized notion of some perfect society.
So far, no progress in pro-life initiatives since 1973, but much hope of success in providing adequate health care to people in need.
Dear Joseph Jaglowicz, This
Dear Joseph Jaglowicz,
This is so well put. Mature, balanced and speaking from moral responsibility as opposed to speaking from moral rigidity, which makes it touch home. I also am thankful for the lucid and honest words of Frère Charles du Désert that have been posted as I write, that it is a moral necessity to replace "the exclusively mercenary and monopolistic and immoral and dysfunctional system" of American health care. The first step would be to open our hearts and see the true nature of this "cancer" of moral bankruptcy that is degrading our wonderful American Democracy.
Finally, I would like to add a link to worldwide abortion percentages, readers can see that many countries that have national health care have lower abortion rates, (Western Europe)and others have the same level as the US (Canada, Australia, Japan). http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/mapworldabrate.html
I respect the pro-life position but not when it is used as a destructive tool of intransigence and obstructionism. (Also, to my knowledge, no US dollars will go towards abortion, and this has been sufficiently clarified). One has to ask what the real agenda is when such fundamentalism is imposed on an issue that is so crucial to our spirit of democracy and civic life.
Wider access to health care
Wider access to health care should not cost the lives of the unborn. Society deserves better than that. We can and should demand better.
"The common good is never served by tolerance for killing the weak – beginning with the unborn" JPII
We don't "tolerate" abortion,
We don't "tolerate" abortion, we deal realistically with it in a pluralistic society.
The eminent North American
The eminent North American Roman Catholic professor and theologian the Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien graciously offers us this article: "The point and purpose of this week's column, however, is not to advocate in favor of one or another proposed bill, but to make sure that Catholics and other interested readers know what the official teaching of the Catholic church is -- not on any of the specific proposals, but on the key moral elements of any reform of the health-care system in the United States."
We do very well to read it, to clear out our preconceptions and prejudices and politics and persistent echoes of Glenn Beck, and to read it.
Know our Faith.
Read this article.
Be quiet.
Read it.
"I was sick and you demanded my insurance carrier."
To those who worry about
To those who worry about federal funding for abortion:it is already forbidden by the Hyde Amendment. Nothing in any of the health care bills now pending would repeal the Hyde Amendment. It seems that the people who are raising alarms about federal funding of abortions are casting about for a noble sounding excuse to oppose all health care reform.As Fr. MCbrien points out, denial of health care is a denial of Catholic doctrine. Let all loyal Catholics get behind health care reform.
As for other types of
As for other types of abortions, the Capps amendment leaves it to the secretary of Health and Human Services to decide whether or not they will be covered. It says, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing" abortion services that would not be legal for Medicaid coverage. Says the NRLC’s Johnson: "The Capps Amendment MANDATES that the public plan cover any Medicaid-fundable abortions, and AUTHORIZES the secretary to cover all other abortions. … [F]rom day one, she [Secretary Kathleen Sebelius] is authorized to pay for them all. And, she will."
We can’t say what anyone will do in the future. But Obama himself said on July 17, 2007, that "[i]n my mind, reproductive care is essential care" and would be covered by his public insurance plan. He was addressing Planned Parenthood:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-is-fabricating/
Dear John F. Daly 111, Most
Dear John F. Daly 111, Most Catholics are in favor of Health Care Reform however how do we accomplish this noble work? We have too much fraud and corruption in our present medical system and apparently can only look forward to more of the same. Integrity in government is a misnomer and a contradiction in terms. Insurance and Pharmacuetical Companies continue to grease the wheels of representatives to get the dollars they greedily desire! How do we put controls on any system run by our corrupt government and still achieve Health Care Reform. My Solution: Hope for failure this time around and then throw out every incumbent in Washington and re-start by voting into office people of integrity. We should have a few thousand honest people in this land of 320,000,000 people!
Dear Tom Warren, Because you
Dear Tom Warren,
Because you have to start somewhere, and we finally have a president who is attempting to stand up to lobbies, despite the Herculean feats ahead. Will we all give a hand or squander this moment. What astounds Europeans about America is her flexibility of spirit and occasional unique ability to change routes. Seeds do come to term. If we only look at why it will be hard we might as well not get out of bed in the morning. America has immense resources and I am not talking about commodity. Will we use our youthful, rigorous, ideal spirit? This is the leadership we are capable of.
Dear Stephanie, Unfortunately
Dear Stephanie, Unfortunately we do not have a President standing up to lobbiests and the prevalent fraud and corruption will happen in any Health Care Reform Bill which Congress passes! The 535 people currently representing we 320,000,000 people must go! All they are concerned about is enriching themselves and getting re-elected! Yes this country is resilient and we can do anything we set out to do! However it makes no sense to pass a Bill just for the sake of passing a Bill! Look at the fraud in Medicare and Medicaid! If we do not pass a Bill with teeth in it the fraud and corruption will continue to the point of bancrupting this country! Nobody in Washington is talking about true Health Care Reform. Can we afford to pass a Bill without true REFORM?? My answer is NO, NO, and NO!!
Mr. Warren, can we "afford"
Mr. Warren, can we "afford" --- morally --- to allow people in need to go without adequate health care?
The 535 people in Congress will continue to make our laws. Most incumbents have the money (from lobbyists) to get reelected. There's a well documented "revolving door" between Capitol Hill and "K" Street. In light of constitutional law as interpreted by the Supreme Court, it would be difficult if not impossible to prevent this kind of behavior. After all, corporations have the right to make their views known to members of Congress, and money apparently is a form of protected "speech."
I am not as optimistic as are you that when it comes to health care, "we can do anything we set out to do." Decades of reform efforts have failed, and a powerful lobby --- aided and abetted by former lobbyists who serve as congressional staffers --- is hell bent on killing reform. My own senior U.S. senator, Mitch McConnell, has failed to date to offer any viable alternative approaches to health care reform. Yet he enjoys access to the most generous health insurance available to anybody in the United States! Talk about selfishness!
There will always be "fraud and corruption" in any large program, government or corporate. That's why we have IGs in government and fraud detection programs in corporations. When it comes to protesting against wrongdoing, I'm reminded of what a retired Army guy told a bunch of us a number of years ago: His kids would sometimes complain, "That's not fair, Daddy," and he would lovingly reply, "Of course life is not fair, kiddo. A fair is a fancy country picnic."
We deal with reality as it is, not with some wonderful kind of utopian vision that will never come about. We need to recall that Jesus advised his disciples not only to be holy --- but also to be smart in dealing with evil.
We are not trying (in your words) "to pass a Bill just for the sake of passing a Bill." We are, instead, trying to pass a Bill to guarantee every American, especially those "without," a level of health care adequate to meeting human need. As Christians, we take our "cues" from the gospels.
There will never be "true" reform as you would like it. Human greed will always hide in the darkness and have to be ferreted out by government and corporate investigators who often rely on "whistleblowers" for tips on wrongdoing. This may not be the way you like it, but it is the reality in which all of us have to work.
Life is not fair, but we can help our fellow folks in need get adequate health care! This goal is a gospel imperative.
Dear Tom Warren, Standing up
Dear Tom Warren,
Standing up to lobbyists is no easy feat, and from this side of the Atlantic the corruption you talk about (insurance companies) seems to be very well rooted. Had Obama’s original idea of offering a national plan option been accepted, this would have created a positive market stimulus of more competitive prices, forcing insurance companies to charge more reasonable prices, instead, indirectly, you are arguing to maintain a kind of monopoly of the greedy bad guys. I also find it a bit contradictory that you pigeon hole the current government “for wanting to enrich themselves” after 8 years of preventative oil war, Halliburton, Rumsfeld’s shareholding in Tamiflu patent, just to name a few. Shall we hurry back to more of that good old cowboy moral authority? I don’t get it. Neither does much of the world honestly. Is it a conspiracy against America or are we adrift in our national moral character?
Italian health care does not work perfectly. Of course there is corruption and inefficiency. But the point is, health care is guaranteed by our constitution, seen as a fundamental right and available to all. All things considered, care is quite good and citizens are free to use any service, specialist or hospital they care to, anywhere in the country and our health care is also valid anywhere in the European union. So we are talking big numbers of population here too. There is a private market here, of laboratories, clinics etc. but because of the national health care this private market is very reasonably priced as well! Market prices, not monopoly prices, 1,000’s of times less than exorbitant prices in the US. Health care is the bottom line here, and this is how it should be. Should Americans sit by and complain about the big bad lobbies or take action, together, to improve their lot? When I mentioned “our resources” I was referring the what I dearly love about my culture: a sophisticated civic sense and capacity to work together for the common good. We have a wonderful, wonderful democracy and ideal spirit, may this lead us, and allow us to be a world leader of mature Democracy.
But Tom,how many people will
But Tom,how many people will die for lack of insurance if the present attempt at health care reform fails? If we wait until every incumbent (including many good ones) is kicked out of Congress, there will be no health care reform.Is that what you want?
Dear John F Daly 111, Of
Dear John F Daly 111, Of course I want Health Care REFORM with the emphasis on REFORM! How do we get there? We cannot afford to pass a Bill which will enrich the greedy people we are already enriching! This is supposed to be a free country of, by, and for the people! We are not even close to that today!
Mr. Warren, given decades of
Mr. Warren, given decades of failure to enact health care reform, we have to start somewhere (from the current situation that might be described as "nowhere"). The opposition understandably prefers the status quo, and the Republicans have offered no viable alternatives. So we move forward --- however imperfectly --- to make some progress in assuring adequate health care to people in need.
A good definition of love is extending oneself for the sake of the other. If this means that I incur higher taxes (and reduced income) in order to assure adequate health coverage to my fellow children of God without it, so be it!!!!!!!!!!
To quote conservative NYT columnist David Brooks, "In the real world, you often don't get to choose what your options will be. You have to choose from a few bad options." Or, as an Army retiree once told us, "Life is not fair. A fair is a fancy country picnic!"
We work with reality, not with utopia.
Any idea why this great Notre
Any idea why this great Notre Dame Scholar didnt mention the free abortions, just as promised in the Democratic Platform. Maybe he didnt have time for petty details
Post new comment