The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
The USCCB's Bulletin Inserts
by Michael Sean Winters on Jan. 12, 2010
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionThe USCCB’s bulletin insert on health care reform is problematic in several regards. Unlike the video on their website, it does not praise the central objective of the bill, namely, extending health care coverage to more Americans. It notes that the bishops have long supported health care reform but they fault the current bill for a variety of reasons. Like the USCCB, I deplore the provisions limiting the access of immigrants to the new health care options the bill enacts. And, I agree that the conscience provisions could be tightened, though the current ones do not, to my mind, constitute a deal breaker and I suspect any language will be clarified by the courts.
There is one bullet point, however, that seems very arguable. The bulletin insert states: “On December 24, the U.S. Senate rejected this policy and passed health care reform that
requires federal funds to help subsidize and promote health plans that cover elective
abortions. All purchasers of such plans will be required to pay for other people’s abortions through a separate payment solely to pay for abortion.” It is true that the Senate bill allows federal funds to subsidize plans that cover elective abortion, but the bill requires anyone with such a plan to pay for the abortion coverage with a separate check, taken from their own bank account. What the House bill, which the bishops applaud, contemplates, namely the purchase of riders for abortion coverage, the Senate bill requires. How does that constitute federal funding?
The insert also fails to note that the Senate bill requires that every exchange set up to offer insurance offer at least one plan that does not include abortion coverage. Richard Doerflinger, who is the USCCB point man on pro-life issues, told me that market forces will likely result in many plans including abortion coverage and perhaps only one that does not, because abortion is cheaper than a pregnancy carried to term, so the insurance companies will want people to have the coverage and to use it. But, I suspect many people will be turned off by having to write a second check every month and many companies will not want the accounting headache. Even more to the point, prognostications about what market forces will and will not do is not a doctrinal matter and it is a shame that the bishops seem to indicate that they will oppose a final bill that includes the Senate’s language.
I understand that a bulletin insert is not the place for careful dissection of policy differences, but if I were a pastor, I would print three copies of the insert and put them in the back of the church if anyone wants them.
The Senate bill is simply an
The Senate bill is simply an accounting scheme. No money for the blood of the unborn.
The bishops have spoken. Let's listen to them.
Out of sight out of mind,
Out of sight out of mind, right Mr. Winters?
Nonsense.
Mr. Winters your article is
Mr. Winters your article is the perfect point why liberal Catholics are the major reason the culture of death rages in America. You reall don't give a damm about the unborn.
His past and present articles
His past and present articles render your position unsupportable.
True enough, Michael. Since
True enough, Michael. Since the bill is not yet in its final version, this exercise seems premature and another waste of limited resources. And as a self-employed person who pays high premiums for basically nothing but a major medical policy, and high out-of pocket costs, I just cannot agree with the bishops on this. If the bishops had to go out and pay for their own coverage as individuals, they would understand better how so many Americans suffer abuse and indignity at the hands of the insurance companies, and why so many cannot afford coverage and therefore access to health care. That is the true tragedy of our system, and I pray the USCCB sees how important it is that this bill passes, so we can begin to give more Americans access to health care.
Peace and blessings
Of course you would. Who
Of course you would. Who cares about Catholic principles if they contradict the Democratic party line, right?
Mr. Winters wisely advises:
Mr. Winters wisely advises: "if I were a pastor, I would print three copies of the insert and put them in the back of the church if anyone wants them."
Such diversionary tactics are redundant nevertheless, as in my recollection no one takes and reads any bulletins, let alone inserts, whose sole purpose is a vain attempt to amuse the young ones quietly, or to fan the face when the cooler goes down again.
Nevertheless, Mr. Winters's keen and realistic (even daring, pastoral-revolutionary, and liberating) insight here makes one wish he had remained in seminary. Unfortunately he apparently did not find it after all his cup of tea.
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
Well, with regard to the two
Well, with regard to the two possible plans (one including abortion, one not), unless I am mistaken, bith plans will be subsidized by the government, i.e. payed for to some extent by taxpayers. This, at least, is what I have been hearing, and I have never heard anything to the contrary. Therefore, a taxpayer is still paying for an abortion, even if he or she does not have the pro-choice plan. And if this is not the case, could someone point to where a more accurate description of the two-planm system can be found.
Ah, if a traditional pastor
Ah, if a traditional pastor did what Michael Sean Winters suggests in his last paragraph, he would be impaled on these pages as one who denies people information, etc., but--of course--with Obamacare the goal is so "noble" that playing fast and loose with the truth is OK, after all, the end justifies the means (especially in revisionist "Catholic" morality).
The bishops are right. When governments collect money, it is a government fee and a government tax. Sorry, accounting legerdemain does not change the fact that money is fungible, the abortionists want their snouts under the federal tent, and have found a sufficient number of gullible "Catholics" that are ready to give them political cover for their end game.
So for you it is all about
So for you it is all about the kind of financial shell game the GOP has played since the darkest days of David Stockman, since dare we say, Nixon made illness a profit making enterprise, and not about getting some form of health care to the millions in America who have none?
Post new comment