The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionMurray's Moral Case for Health Care Reform
by Michael Sean Winters on Mar. 09, 2010
Our friends at the Catholic Alliance for the Common Good are keeping busy in this final push for universal health care coverage. In a statement issued today, their new President, Morna Murray said, “Isn't it time we agreed it is simply unacceptable for anyone in America to be denied health insurance because of a pre-existing condition or arbitrary annual limits of what an insurance company decides is good for its own profits? Is such a system good for Americans? Is it good for vulnerable low-income and working class families and children? It is good for one thing and one thing only -- health insurance industry profits. This does not serve the common good.” The full statement is here.
Murray’s point is familiar to anyone acquainted with Catholic social teaching, but it was oddly lacking from the President’s speech yesterday in Philadelphia. There he focused on the outrageous increases in health care premiums at a time of record profits for the insurance industry - $12.2 billion in profits for the five largest firms last year to be exact. I confess that I love it when the President sounds a populist theme, but I wish he had been sounding that theme last summer. Now, it is too late.
Obama should have consulted Murray before his speech. The decisive votes at this point are a group of a dozen or so pro-life Democrats. I do not suspect they will be moved much from their commitment to the original Stupak Amendment, but if the President had made the moral case all along for universal health insurance, it might put the debate about abortion in perspective. No, there should not be any government funding of abortion, but there are many ways to skin that cat, and it is a crying shame to let health care reform fail because only one method of cat-skinning is viewed as permissible. The reason to enact universal health insurance is, as Murray suggests, because it is the right thing to do. Period. Yes, we need to dot the I’s on the abortion language, but achieving universal health coverage is – per se – a pro-life thing to do. Thousands die every year because they lack coverage. The status quo is unacceptable and it is morally wrong to block the best shot at reform in any of our lifetimes.
America doesn't want
America doesn't want socialist health care. Democrats pass the bill at their own peril. You know nothing about what will serve the common good. If Canadians have such good government health care, why do those who can afford to come to the U.S. for treatment?
Stephan, the reason that
Stephan, the reason that Canadians who can afford it--and notice you said "afford" it-come to America for their health care, is because we do have the best facilities and doctors in the world. What we lack is the access to this health care to Americans. Maybe you should attend a health care fair and see the condition millions of Americans are in when it comes to access. It is simply immoral and unChristian. In Canada everyone has access to the health care system for anything-from a check-up to a transplant. Yet in America there are 45,000 Americans who die every year from a treatable illness, simply because they lack the money or the insurance to access our excellent system. Do you realize that 8 people every minute are denied coverage, charged a higher rate,or otherwise discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition? The status quo is anti-life.
Peace and blessings.
One million children under
One million children under the age of 10 die every year. 97% from legal abortion. But the trillions to be borrowed from China for the liberal "health" plan will do nothing about it.
You care about children? Make abortion illegal. Punish those who particiapte. It will do 100 times what the liberals say they can do, and for for peanuts.
I agree.
I agree.
" ...there are many ways to
" ...there are many ways to skin that cat. "
Let's see. What do we think he means by that ?
Might he mean that we should water down the argument that abortion is the taking of a life ?
Let's posit that this 78 year old lady has a dread disease and can no longer fend for herself. Should we kill her ? If we do, she'll be dead. We can talk about it and call it by another name, but she'll be dead, nontheless.
That's pretty easy to see as we can see her.
But we can't see the little baby yet so we talk of, " skinning the cat. "
Abortion by any other name is still abortion. It's still wrong just as euthanasia is wrong.
Those who want to talk about it some more simply want you to change your knowledge of this central issue and come around to their point of view.
If you want to paint your house red and someone else wants to paint it yellow, there is no, " compromise " . Combining red and yellow gives you a totally different color.
President Obama's people want abortion IN his health bill.
We know better. Right ?
If only the President could
If only the President could give up his goal of a massive escalation of abortion.
There may be a many ways to
There may be a many ways to skin a cat, but abortion always either dissects, pickles, shards, or expels an unborn child. "Thousands die every year because they lack coverage?" Thousands--millions--will die if Obamacare and its ensconcement of abortion becomes law. On behalf of those children who will be sentenced to death because of the President's thrall to the abortionists, I hope and pray that the Stupaks, Mollohans, and other shrinking coterie of pro-life Democrats in the House have the guts to stand up and say: "no."
Finally, Lord has heard our
Finally, Lord has heard our prayers on the holy day of 23rd March 2010 when the historic health care reform has been passed. Now, days of healthy America is on the way. No one will have to die due to lack of money from a treatable illness. Everyone will be healthy and will be done free. God bless America.
regards
www.hccmis.com
Post new comment