The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionIt's hard to tell what's sicker
by Joan Chittister on Nov. 20, 2009
The Shriver Report, Part II
There's an old children's tale that talks about blind men encircling an elephant trying to determine what kind of beast it is by catching on to various parts of the animal's anatomy. One touches the wrinkled skin, one the trunk and another the rough and hairy tail. They each get a different impression of what they're dealing with: a snake, a wall or rope. It's a lesson in perspective. It's an insight into the truth of the statement that what we see depends on where we stand. But it's hard to tell if people get that message by the way we are inclined to view the really important things of life from one perspective only.
For instance, in the debate on the health care reform bill that is now raging in Congress, most of the emphasis is on the cost of covering people who have never been covered before -- as if those costs are not already being borne by us all but in more subtle, costly ways, as in a lack of personal development that leads to a lack of public resources. The burden of these deficiencies on social service agencies designed to pick up the slack when families break down or children lack care are costs deferred, perhaps, but they are nevertheless real costs.
But health care is about more than money. And it is about more than classism -- as in which classes of society will get it and which won't. It has something to do with sexism, as well.
It took years, for instance, to unmask the fact that very little was known about women as women. A gender blind society, a society that assumed that everything common to males was normative for females, as well, never bothered to test women and men separately for the effects of certain drugs on each. They never examined the differences by which the same disease -- like a heart attack, for instance -- might manifest itself in women as opposed to men. They never noticed the way the distinct life-styles of men and women caused different stress-related diseases.
Clearly, women live on a planet only recently discovered by medicine -- and yet to be discovered by health care reform.
The lag we face between the way women are treated in the medical community and the way men are treated still lies in decades of research undone. But it lies as well in the kinds of coverage available to women as a result of their very different lives.
The Shriver Report: A Woman's Nation (See my earlier article The great discovery: It's a human issue, not a woman's issue) refuses to leave the area unexamined. The findings are chilling.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
First, health care -- like everything else in society -- was developed on assumptions drawn from the lives of men. Men, this world view argued, were the breadwinners. Which translated means that in a society where women were expected to be in the home, or at most to work only part time, women had to rely on their husband's health insurance for their own care. Sounds reasonable -- to a point.
But what happens when the husband dies? Or better yet, when the relationship dies in a divorce court? The Shriver Report is distressingly clear: "A full quarter of women," it reports, "still receive health insurance through their husband's jobs." So? So, in this recession, with men losing 73.6% of the jobs since the Great Recession began in December 2007, the report goes on, "14,000 men, women and children are losing their health insurance each day."
Worse, women who try to buy their own insurance are required to pay more than men for the same policies and are denied care peculiar to a woman, like maternity coverage and reproductive health care.
For women in their child-bearing years, that kind of discrimination, disregard and out-and-out sexism, can literally be fatal. The kinds of toxic environments women in the workplace face in occupations common to women -- hospitals, chemical plants, laundries -- have effects every bit as serious as men face in heavy industry. The social impact of those largely invisible situations and the healthcare mismanagement that follows from it boggles the mind in terms of the toll society suffers from orphaned children, divided families, increased poverty levels and debilitating illnesses. It begs the question: What money are we really saving by not providing total healthcare coverage for women everywhere?
To deny women at all levels of the labor force the same facilities and coverage it takes to protect a woman's health is a timebomb set to go off in the very center of the system. Not only is a lack of healthcare benefits for women dangerous to a woman herself, it also promises to be a social problem of major proportions for generations to come as it becomes more and more difficult to repair the social harm that is done when women -- both mothers and breadwinners now -- are left without the support structures common to every other part of the system.
Most disturbing of all, perhaps, is that it is the very women who need support most if they are to bring both themselves and their families to a higher quality of life -- "poor and low income women, women of color and immigrant women" -- who are being least helped and most overlooked.
And as they go, so goes the general level of society in not too many years to come.
What happens to the poorest in society is, at the very same time and for the very same reason, happening to us. We are digging holes in this society deeper and deeper as we go. We are broadening the base of poverty by the day. We are threatening to become again the very kind of Dickensian society we managed to pull ourselves out of in the early 20th century.
From where I stand, it seems that women are doing more work, getting less pay and given less medical care than men now. You figure it out.
In the meantime, for all our sakes, we better get a more accurate assessment of this elephant of ours before the animal rears up and tramples us all. It's getting harder to tell what's sicker: the people in this country we fail to take care of medically or the health care system itself.
Benedictine Sr. Joan Chittister is a best-selling author and international lecturer on topics of justice, peace, human rights, women’s issues, and contemporary spirituality in the church and in society.
It bewilders me that the
It bewilders me that the richest country on the planet does not yet have universal health care. I live in Australia with one tenth the poulation of the USA. Every Australian, adult or child, has free medical care. Free hospital care. Free of very low cost medicines. It is a given , a right. We believe it is a sign of a mature civilized society.
In a land where your Consitiution avers that "all men are created equal' you have third world inequalities all over the place. Including your health care system.
I don't get it. What are you so scared of if poor people are healthy?
Liberation theology tells us that at some point oppressed people will rise up and take what is their due. I do not understand why middle class America is so determined to set up this scenario. Again.
Our Constitution doesn't say
Our Constitution doesn't say that all men are created equal. In fact, nowhere does our Constitution mention that free health care is a right. And I'm glad, because I don't think I should pay for the health care of people with unhealthy lifestyles--meat eaters, smokers, fat people, drug abusers, and so on. Let them change their bad habits, first, and then come to me looking for a handout.
Until you actually know what you are talking about, don't presume to lecture us from your high horse.
Interesting response Mithras,
Interesting response Mithras, and perhaps we may read as well our Declaration of Independence, quoted so eloquently by the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr. and which begins:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .
Life, Liberty, the pursuit of Happiness.
Yup.
Sounds like one necessary and constituent element of these unalienable rights, one most essential building block, is equitable, accessible, universal health care based not on profit only but on the alleviation of suffering, which is necessary for Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The citation here goes on to explain how Government is instituted expressly to guarantee (secure) these inalienable rights, not to further the greedy and monopolistic profits of industry unfettered by any human considerations.
Please, Mithras, let us be kinder to our southern neighbors who so kindly participate here . . .
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
Dear Charles du desert,
Dear Charles du desert, Perhaps you should also take a step back! I am for a Healthcare REFORM plan but what is currently proposed will send costs skyrocketing and provide less care than most are currently receiving! In addition many of the operations included as part of this bill will have taxes imposed on them! Whoever heard of imposing taxes in a down-economy?? We do have to consider cost when developing any bill. Why don't we stop all WAR immediately and this will be a significant way to help pay for a bill which as presently proposed no country in the world could afford including the UNITED STATES!!! Or better yet let's just proclaim bancruptcy and tell all the countrys we are in debt to that we refuse to honor our debt and then start over! How about that????
Simmer down MITHRAS93 - I too
Simmer down MITHRAS93 - I too am from a country (Canada) that has universal health coverage. Canada, Australia, and every other industrialized nation in the world has it. We all look on the U.S. with bewilderment and dismay. There seems to be no notion or value for the common good. This runs contrary to gospel teaching. Basic health is a right, a human right. Why so many Americans equate this with "free handouts" speaks to the ideology of individualism that masks itself as self-responsibility. We aren't on any "high horse" by pointing this out. We merely want to shed light on a huge problem that sees families go bankrupt because of medical bills, people dying prematurely because they couldn't afford to go to a doctor/hospital. How can you call yourselves a great country with this going on? Those are problems seen in Third World countries and the U.S. and it is shameful.
Our Constitution does say,
Our Constitution does say, however, to promote the 'general welfare'. or perhaps you have a differing notion of welfare. You enjoy focusing on the negative and delight in a litany of lifestyles you abhor. The rational for universal health care is a corporeal work of mercy, not to be denied to a set of rationalizations you prefer. You could just as well enumerate on those who have been dropped from health insurance, those who have a pre-condition, those whose health insurance is now inadequate, and the many who can afford health insurance but are denied. Worst of all is that health insurance premiums are accelerating at rapid rate, what is satisfactory today will not be tomorrow. We have the most expensive drug costs in the world. We stand alone before the industrial world not providing for its citizens. It is unconscionable shame to deny health care or its insurance to anyone in this country. It is not he or I who presumes to lecture you, it comes from the gospel of Matthew, from Dante, Milton, Bunyon.
If I went by your gospel, I might not want my taxes paying for unjust and immoral wars. No, I don't think I should pay for such wars, but I recognize that I am part of a society and my contribution funds a number of things of which I am against. What we are for is providing for health care an integral part of the general welfare, not a value judgement.
Thank you for your comment,
Thank you for your comment, Jen. Well said.
Fortunately for Mithras93, he apparently has no constraints as a 'pre-existing condition' for nasty, self-righteous people on his health care insurance.
Neither! It's the people who
Neither! It's the people who only care whether THEY have health care and tell us everyone can go to the emergency room (like that isn't paid for by us and it's the MOST expensive option). It's the people who say give us smaller government but let me keep my highways, libraries and state colleges. It's the people with money who don't want to share with those they think aren't earning their own even though most of those "lazy do-nothings" are working more than one job. If all the people insisted on healthcare for all instead of getting scared by the insurance lobbyists we'd have it. No business can withstand ALL the people.
Extremely important topic, as
Extremely important topic, as usual. Thank you Joan. For those of us outside USA we can only look on in horror as that once great nation lurches onward trampling its own citizens underfoot. The only good thing to come out of this awful thing is the warning it provides to us in Australia and elsewhere not to let our fool politicians get rid of national health care, as they constantly threaten. USA serves as a clear demonstration of how wasteful and damaging it is.
You can thank President Nixon for bringing in the most expensive, most wasteful, and least effective health care system in the world.
My heart goes out to my friends in USA.
INSURANCE INDUSTRY MOTTO:
INSURANCE INDUSTRY MOTTO: "We profit from your illness."
See Sicko by that great
See Sicko by that great Catholic documentarian Michael Moore.
this crucial column reports:
this crucial column reports: The Shriver Report is distressingly clear: "A full quarter of women," it reports, "still receive health insurance through their husband's jobs." So? So, in this recession, with men losing 73.6% of the jobs since the Great Recession began in December 2007, the report goes on, "14,000 men, women and children are losing their health insurance each day."
"From where I stand, it seems that women are doing more work, getting less pay and given less medical care than men now. You figure it out."
===================================================================
please read and act now
support health care reform
absolutely
it is an emergency
our lives depend on it
do not oppose it because you have been lied to
support health care reform today
it is the only civilized thing to do
dignum et justum est
Who, pray tell, is opposed to
Who, pray tell, is opposed to health care reform, Soeur du Désert? I’m well aware of opposition to SPECIFIC health care reform proposals but not to the IDEA of health care reform. As far as lying is concerned, irrational claims of what would happen if Congress supported THIS or withheld support from THAT exist aplenty, but these amount to rhetorical bombast, not to lies. So who’s been lying to you, Chuck?
Kindly, Gal, forgive my
Kindly, Gal, forgive my slowness in responding to you, as I only now come stumbling across this query to me.
I beg you forgive my severely limiting literacy incapacity, but it is quite difficult for me to discern in your several words the precise point of your questions.
I ask you please to support free, universal, integral, accessible, holistic, all-encompassing public Health Care as in the civilized nations of our earth.
Is that more clear?
Forgive me once more as I cannot comprehend the bulk of your statement but I hope this answers as adequately as I can, limited as I am.
Nevertheless I do remain, Gal, your little sewer of the desert,
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
You said, " It's getting
You said, " It's getting harder to tell what's sicker: the people in this country we fail to take care of medically or the health care system itself."
The answer is NEITHER. As you, yourself, so clearly point out, it is the underlying system of male bias is our society itself. As a male Catholic I have recognized and fought this my entire life. (As an example: as a manager in the U.S. Civil Service I was the first senior manager to promote a woman to 2nd level supervision at an Air Force base.)
We have a long ways to go and we in the Church neeed to be leaders in this effort.
Joan, thank you for your
Joan, thank you for your characteristically astute and in-depth assessment of the situation!
Just yesterday an article in
Just yesterday an article in the New York Times reported a "cost saving" measure to do Pap smears to detect cervical cancer less often, and later at age 21 despite the fact that females are sexually active at a much earlier age. A Pap test, although it is an important introduction to reproductive health, is not particularly the issue; a lack of good medical care for women is. Sr. Joan has identified a serious problem in our nation as well as throughout the world. Just as the scriptures express through their writers a prejudice against women, it continues today. And our Church does not take a leadership role in correcting the problem. If women did not protest, demonstrate and have articulate representatives such as Sr. Joan, the all male leadership in the Catholic Church would still be unaware that there is a problem.
Right on Joan!! How about
Right on Joan!! How about sending a copy of this to Pre. Obama, his wife , Nancy Pelosi and the Senate in general. see if they can read and have alight bulb go on. Keep it up Joan.
Thank you for revealing a
Thank you for revealing a truth that should seem so obvious, but rarely does. Health care for all people should be considered a human right. A society that does not respect itself enough to care for both the wealthiest and the poorest among us will eventually fall. Those who are debating health care reform should be able to see that denying care to women will also affect the men. In fact, I think the women in the Congress should demand that if women are denied care for their reproductive health, men should also be denied care for prostate trouble and ED, and especially should not be covered for ED drugs like viagra. That sounds vindictive but maybe they would gain some perspective if they were made more aware.
Joan I agree that women have
Joan I agree that women have gotten the short of end of the stick in many instances of this country's debates, but I was disappointed that you took this example. The overwhelming second in the lineup of values ignored behind money is U.S. citizens lives. And of course it should not be second but first. Can you imagine the outcry if we had 123 military personnel killed every day? That is how many ill and injured citizens are left to die precisely because they lack health care. This seems to me not the time to beat the sexist drum.
"...it seems that women are
"...it seems that women are doing more work, getting less pay and given less medical care than men now."
Is it just a coincidence that in the midst of all this talk about health care reform, all of these NEW studies and guidelines are emerging telling women they need LESS preventative screenings and measures?
I wholeheartedly agree with
I wholeheartedly agree with you Joan. However, there is more to this than you mention.
The primary reason why health care (or lack thereof) is in the inequitable position it is in is because we live in an inequitable society. We live in a society, at least in U.S. that is based on unabashed capitalism. In such a society, what makes money is what gets done and, when it doesn't, doesn't get done.
Health care is subject to the same laws of supply and demand, cost, profit and margin as is anything else in our society. So what is covered, what is paid for are those things that are a) least costly in terms of frequency as well as unit value and b) most predictable in terms of cost and outcomes.
Not surprisingly, what we get is what we got: many people and illnesses not covered and a complete lack of innovation or actual CURES because alleviating perpetual symptoms is a lot more profitable than finding answers.
This is a wonderful series,
This is a wonderful series, Sr. Joan.
You wrote:
What happens to the poorest in society is, at the very same time and for the very same reason, happening to us. We are digging holes in this society deeper and deeper as we go. We are broadening the base of poverty by the day. We are threatening to become again the very kind of Dickensian society we managed to pull ourselves out of in the early 20th century.
In both society and in the Church, we seem to be losing ground. Those too young to remember the events and times that spawned the civil rights movement, the feminism movement, and even Vatican 2, often take for granted the benefits they have as a result and don't even realize how they came to have those benefits. In the eyes of many, the above mentioned have taken on a negative caricature having no basis in fact. That which is taken for granted can be overcome by inertia to forward movement, and then finally lost.
.
When I graduated from high school and went to university, it was not considered the norm for females. Snide comments were common: she's just husband shopping and wanting to "marry up" — or worse, she's one of those feminists making a statement. That "she" might actually be planning further to graduate school and a career in the medical field, was not even on the radar for onlookers. A woman had to work harder and perform better to be taken seriously at all. A lot has changed because of female perseverance, but creeping sexism remains even today — some of it subtle, and some of it, not so much.
.
Racism is also making a come-back as something 'acceptable' (within some circles) to overtly profess, as witnessed by truly tacky cartoons, pictures and slogans, representing our current president as an African witch-doctor or descendant of a tree-swinging ape or references to lynching seen at Notre Dame. Those who actually remember pre-civil rights times recognize that this is no accident or mere "paranoia".
.
In the Church, some of the worst of clericalism is making a reappearance. On the surface it has the appearance of elegant vestments and precise ceremonial — all very regal and impressive. But under the surface attractiveness is a dark underbelly of religious caste: elite hierarchs governing voiceless, mindless lower-archs, ...to paraphrase Bishop Gumbleton.
.
The Roman Church has a long and unsavory history of reducing women to nothing more than their procreative function, as the writings of Church fathers clearly demonstrate. Church law continues to presume ecclesiastical control of her body as its 'property' over which to dictate how and when she reproduces, and even whether she is condemned to death as a result of a pregnancy gone wrong, on penalty of excommunication should she choose to save her own life by ending a life-threatening pregnancy. Men would not stand for such nonsense were it their bodies under similar dictates. Notice the priorities of the USCCB, determined to EXPAND the Hyde Amendment at the risk of sabotaging health care reform, while over 46,000 already born neonates, infants, children, women and men, die each year for lack of affordable health care. The United States has also joined the ranks of underdeveloped, non-industrialized countries in percent of fetal and maternal deaths due to lack of affordable prenatal care. Thus, "pro-life" is also reduced to ridiculous caricature.
.
Yes, we are in serious danger of sliding back into that Dickensian society of yester-years. It would be a shame if yet another generation will have to start over from scratch and re-fight the battles already won, but lost due to a careless indifference and naïveté. We often don't appreciate what we have until it's gone.
"The United States has also
"The United States has also joined the ranks of underdeveloped, non-industrialized countries in percent of fetal and maternal deaths due to lack of affordable prenatal care. Thus, "pro-life" is also reduced to ridiculous caricature."
This statistic alone should be an embarrassing indictment of not just the so called 'pro life' movement, but American culture. It boggles my mind that we can quibble about spending 950 million for universal health care over 10 years when Bush spent 9 trillion on defense expenditures in his eight years. Where were our pro life bishops when these decisions were made?
Oh I forgot, Bishop Morlino was supervising the School of the Americas. Your boys did nice work in Honduras Bishop Morlino.
compare our infant mortality
compare our infant mortality rates with Cuba
Chittister has a way of
Chittister has a way of bringing us face to face with reality as she brings examples in abundance of those people whose cause she addresses. Such naked honesty, such insight, provides us of limited imagination with a true standard of how we are to face our civic responsibilities as well as live our Christian lives.
Thanks to Sister Joan for
Thanks to Sister Joan for pulling the fibers of the health problem and its implications together so nicely. The same should be done (repeatedly) for many issues. For example:
Just from the economics of it (aside from the social issues and values):
Poor education is far more costly than enough good schools with enough good teachers and reasonably sized classes.
War is far more costly than peace.
Paying for the consequences of global warming will be enormously more expensive than regearing to stop it now (if we can).
As usual, Sr. Joan is right
As usual, Sr. Joan is right on. I appreciate and admire her clear thinking on the serious problems our country faces. She tells it like it is. Thank you, Sr. Joan.
Sister Joan should also have
Sister Joan should also have a column in the New York Times and the Washington (DC) Post so that more people from different religious traditions and political persuasions could read her direct and insightful articles. I'm a librarian and work in a 6-12 charter school in a part of this nation that could be best characterized as conservative politically and religiously. To my great consternation, even my aide is a great Glen Beck fan as well as some of our high school students, who ask me to carry his books in the school library, which I can resist doing because Glen Beck isn't part of the curriculum. What has seemed to drop out of our curriculum down South has been Charles Dickens' novels. I keep trying to convince our English teachers of his importance without a great deal of success. I gather that many teachers believe him old fashioned and fantastical, but I believe he is an important part of their education and should be read for their literary, social, and ethical merit. A Christmas Carol is still read by some classes but no other of his novels. I don't think they understand the indictment of l'aissez faire capitalism that Dickens is trying to make in his novels. Nothing could be plainer than in the one novel some still read. "Are there no workhouses?"
I think the knee-jerk reaction by many more conservative citizens about health care reform is that they fear it may not only lead to less choice but would lead us down the road to a loss of freedom in all its senses. George Bush's constant coupling of democracy and capitalism, as if the two were synonymous, has fed into that mind set. American Catholics might consider reading old encyclicals. I recall reading an encyclical in my high school government class some 49 years ago that I believe was written by Pius XI that would be helpful to re-read. As I recall it examined communism and capitalism, looking at how these economic systems impacted societies. The conclusion was that neither system was evil per se but, when practiced to their extremes, could be evil. Government intervention to get medical insurance for all its citizens is hardly an evil to fear. As a democracy, we can use government to create a more caring and just society. Why wait till tomorrow? Why can't we have a more just society today?
Barbara permit me to disagree
Barbara permit me to disagree with your notion that Pope Pius , when comparing capitalism and communism found neither to be evil “unless practiced in the extreme”. As a person who has traveled behind the” Iron Curtain” during its last days, let me assure you that Communism ,even in its receding stages, most defiantly may be described by the word evil. Many ugly policies may be justified when promoted as “good for all”. In the case of communism there is no God except of course the State, which in turn is run by “the Party”. Anyone who disagrees is quickly marginalized and silenced all for the good of the state and thus the people. As a librarian Barbara you might profit from keeping an open mind, and discern between sources of information verses the individual ideas that you may not like. Exercise some critical analysis before you exclude one source ie Beck , Fox news etc and not question other sources ie NYT. What are you going to do with breaking info on “Climategate” ignore fraud simply because the Times
has not picked up the story yet? On health Care who doesn’t want everyone to have better access? But Barbara what is the cost? If you are prolife and work in the medical field will it be your job for refuseing to go along? Will this mean dire financial consequences for ourselves and our children? (think VAT and other Taxes that will surley follow for starters and a potential currency collapse soon after) A 2000 page bill that few, if any, have read and force voted on a saturday night? Not the most thoughtful approach wouldn’t you agree?
I find it hard to believe
I find it hard to believe that Pius XI found Marxism okay unless it was extreme. Socialism has been condemned by the Church. Laissez-faire capitalism has been condemned as well. The Church allows for mixed economies as they have in Europe but the amount of state involvment would have to be necessary to satisfy the subsidiarity concept.
Certainly all the Pius popes (IX, X, XI, XII) believed in the social kingship of Jesus Christ which was repudiated by the Robber Council, Vatican II. JPII even waxed poetic at how wonderful it was that a mosque was built in what used to be the eternal city of Rome! Hard to see Benedict's heurmenuetic (sp?)of continuity here!
Perhaps this is a useless
Perhaps this is a useless exercise, but I really must ask p. to provide sources for this statement: "Socialism has been condemned by the Church."
When, where and how?
Have you read the most recent social encyclical, and those all the way back to rerum Novarum?
Have you read the Acts of the Apostles, in which the early Church drew from each according to their gifts and gave to each according to their needs?
Again, I ask you in vain once more to supply some source for each line of this remarkable statement.
I do thank you very much for recalling to our attention the concept of "subsidiarity" as it has much to say about how our US Church is now being violently reshaped and centralized by a few vocal and right wing anglo bishops.
Again please supply your sources regarding the Robber Council repudiating Cristo Rey.
Please state where and how
Please state where and how "socialism has been condemed by The Church".
Yes, and at the same time it
Yes, and at the same time it would do Paulte good to research what The Church has said about Democracy and Capitalism.
How Congress and health
How Congress and health insurance companies can continue to keep women at risk is an abomination. But what more could we expect from a Congress that refuses to sign on to CEDAW, and thus remains in the company of a few nations whose record on justice for women is near the failure point? We women fail to recognize our own power to change this destructive behavior on the part of government, insurance companies, employment, and all the other organizational bodies who would continue to believe the Emperor is well clothed. We have been fractured by the dominant powers of our society in order that they may continue the travesties that destroy "the general welfare."
Right on, Sister Joan
Right on, Sister Joan
Dear Joan, Thank you for
Dear Joan,
Thank you for shining your light on a reality that most of (us)men spend so much energy denying. May Our Lord convert our hearts.
JR
Dear Sr. Joan, Please
Dear Sr. Joan, Please introduce me to a Hospital or a Doctor who will refuse medical attention whether one is a male, female, child, rich or poor. All across America there are many caring Institutions and Individuals dedicated to healing and their only concern is for the Good Health of the Individual they are treating!
Thank you Sister Joan for
Thank you Sister Joan for continuing to be the voice of those with no voice.
Our sense of humanity must never take a back seat to our concerns for fiscal responsibility. They must always be intertwined and not compartmentalized.
Pat Bernbom
Dear Sister Joan, As a
Dear Sister Joan,
As a retired RN and as a person who leans more to the left on about everything than to the right, I have seen so many cases of discrimination. Whether it has been in equal pay for the same work done by either gender, gender discrimination and sexual discrimination--not to mention the health care mess.
I was working at a Catholic hospital, now closed in Kansas City, MO. One doctor on the staff was just totally obnoxious. Inappropriate remarks and touching. Leering. That sort of thing. I told my head nurse about it, and she told this guy to knock it off. Nothing happened, despite her efforts. So, I went to the Director of Nurses, a Sister of Charity, and told her about it. This was just before the Anita Hill hearings. This was what I was told by her and the administrator of the hospital. They would do nothing for me, but the hospital would represent the doctor in court, if I took action. BECAUSE I cost them money, since they paid me a salary and this doc brought patients to the hospital, thereby bringing in money! I also cared for a young Hispanic girl of 15, in a Catholic hospital in Milwaukee. She had been raped and was about to have this baby. The only counseling she received was that she HAD to give up the child. No other options. I asked her how she felt about all that had happened to her. She told me that probably the counselor was right, that she couldn't take care of a baby, although she said she loved the baby, because it was part of her. And as about the rape? She said this. "In a way, it's a relief, because once a Hispanic girl becomes pregnant, the guys will quit hitting on her." How sad is that??? No comfort offered to this child, no support for me in my situation, until I threatened this guy with annihilating certain body parts if he didn't knock it off. And in 2 Catholic institutions. I support health care for all--with what it costs to support the military-industrial complex, and all the graft associated with it, to work for peace instead of condoning war, we could easily afford a national health care plan for all. Thanks, Bobbie
We women are complex
We women are complex creatures, productive ones, and ones for whom pay and healthcare are so necessary that to neglect their funding is a detriment to the mystical body of Christ. We are shooting ourself in the foot! Ow. From where I stand, while I switch to one foot only, sharing more is a logical next step for anyone who is not a woman.
It is very true what you say.
It is very true what you say. Thank you.
Sr Joan is always on target,
Sr Joan is always on target, peeling the onion back to discover that there is rampant -ism in our society - whether is be sexism, racism or ecuminism. My view of the issues of society is both simple and complex: WWJD? And the I try to do that.
Sr. Joan has a talent for
Sr. Joan has a talent for "hitting the nail on the head." I enjoy reading her columns, and acting on them when the opportunity arises.
As a 67 year old cradle
As a 67 year old cradle Catholic, also a divorced mother of a gay daughter, and grandmother of my married daughter's baby born with Down Syndrome, I am beginning at last to question by continued allegiance to the Catholic Church. I would hate to leave my church where I was the first female lay reader and continue to serve that function today. I feel at home there and love the Mass.
I question my continued allegiance because our Bishops seem to be making abortion the central issue of our Church. I wouldn't have an abortion; I don't think many mothers are comfortable with abortion -- we know how we feel about that precious embryo. But. . . we live in a society with others who do not share our beliefs and they have rights, too.
And our society has many issues at least as serious as abortion. Like the ever-widening gap between ultra rich and poor. Like the toxins polluting our air, water, and food. Like wars so expensive in lives and dollars that they must be scrutinized more carefully as to whether they have any hope of their goal to create democracy where it is totally out of sync with local traditions. Like the fact that my grandson can't get decent health insurance with both Down Syndrome and Type I diabetes. We must talk as much about his rights as we do about the "rights of the unborn."
I yearn for the day when our bishops will speak with a clear voice giving equal time to these issues.
It is a profoundly sad
It is a profoundly sad commentary on our "victim society" that Sister is so quick to point out "isms": classism, sexism, etc., as though one only finds one's meaning in the group of victims one is part of. I do not blame Sister for this desire to victimize everyone, she is merely another voice in an increasing chorus of victimhood, a victimhood waiting expectantly for the government to come along and save us all!
I personally oppose all forms of government hand-out or government welfare for any reason. But, since one cannot simply sweep all of that away (particularly in this current "give-me" society of ours), if one is serious about seeking to provide coverage for those who do not have insurance coverage currently, then fine. It can be done rather easily, without forcing everyone else, those who do have insurance, or those who choose not to, to alter what they have.
If one is serious about reforming the current health care system, then fine. I would welcome that. I would welcome reforms that encourage genuine private competition (which always benefits the consumer). I would welcome drastic reductions in tort awards for medical malpractice claims. I would welcome the opportunity to shop for health insurance across state lines, to be able to compare rates from companies in New York, Illinois, Colorado, Ohio, Alaska and Wyoming and find one that provide the best coverage that I need/want at the lowest possible price. I would welcome the ability to "port" my insurance for job to job, place to place. I would welcome a tax credit for the full cost of my yearly insurance premium.
Of course, none of this is currently being considered seriously. Rather, what is being proposed is a massive "reform" that sees as its ultimate goal (granted, the goal may be some years in being realized) the elimination of the private health care system with the result that all health care is provided by the government. I oppose, and fear, this result which will lead, inevitably, to rationing of care and skyrocketing costs, as well as far fewer individuals of talent entering the medical and nursing schools.
But, most of all, I fear exactly that which Sister has done in her column. She has placed squarely on the shoulders of the government the solution to this problem. In so doing, she has cut out the private sector, and cut out each of us. We, as Christians, are called to care for the sick and the suffering. But, those like Sister Joan would rather see the government do that instead of the individual, while, at the same time, proclaiming how compassionate and charitable they are because they write columns that talk about doing something. It is easy to talk and easy to say, "Let the government handle this". In so doing, we remove the burden of caring from our shoulders and shift that burden to the government. It is certainly not what Christ would do, and certainly not what He called His followers to do.
But, for those who see secular government as the savior of the human condition, such as a Benedictine sister who writes a column in a Catholic newspaper and does not mention, even once, the Name of Jesus - a column that would be equally at home in the New York Times or Mother Jones, as it is here - this solution, let the government do it so I don't have to, is merely bringing into reality that which they most want.
Yes, you certainly hit the
Yes, you certainly hit the nail on the head about the "isms"! Also about the victimization as well. Women as a class in this society are hardly victims. White women in particular are a privileged class for the most part in this and other countries. During the apartheid era white women in South Africa had one of the highest standards of living in the world.
It would make more sense to focus on the poor in general regardless of gender or race if there is to be some concern. It's the working poor in particular who could use some help from the government in terms of health care.
Rather than change our whole system, the government should provide some sort of subsidized health insurance for the working poor. The middle class can take care of its own needs. The very poor have Medicaid but the working poor fall through the cracks in the system.
This is a typical Clint Green
This is a typical Clint Green response. His great fear that the private sector will be eliminated is just fear mongering. Who does he think is paying for all those without health insurance who show up in the emergency room? He is, and we all are. THE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY IS NOT SUFFERING, NOR WILL IT. Corporate America is alive and well and continues to take advantage of us each and every day.
Clint with all due
Clint with all due respect,
Have you ever heard the adage, "Give a man a fish and he eats for today, but teach a man to fish and he feeds himself for a lifetime?"
When Christ comes again, He may ask the question, "I see the mercy,
where's the justice?" We, Christians like to give mercy, but to give justice is to level the playing field for all. That is truly the road less traveled during the last 2000 years + and much more difficult to follow. This is what I believe we, christians, are here to do in gratuity for the love of our Creator. And what an opportunity we christians have, living in a country whose constitution requires that the government be by the people, for the people! What' s so wrong about our government, by the people, making laws that care for the people, all the people? I believe, this is what Sr. Joan asks us to understand in her essay.
How is this not Christian? Surely, we are asked to care for one another as you have stated. Will this cost us? Certainly it will. Why not ask how much it cost us to make war during the last 8 years? This was a function of our government. We paid for this. This is ok with us? Was it worth the lives lost both here and abroad? Was it worth our wages, trillions spent in taxes, for our war machines? Is this the example Christ gave us while He lived on Earth? Is this what He meant when He asked us to love one another?
We, Christians, need to be more involved and vocal in regards to our government since we live here in a country whose government is just that, by the people, for the people!
Dear Joan, Once again you
Dear Joan,
Once again you have said well what is in the heart of this 77 year old, old woman! As the mother of 10 and grandmother of 28, I shudder to think of how far afield this health care reform has gone. It has become a political battlefield and, I fear, the problems addressed by reform are being lost in the volatile discussions. May the light enter this darkness so that it results in healthcare for ALL Americans...men, women and children...please, God, the children.
Peace,
Nancy Coyle
I am an American living in
I am an American living in Italy for some 18 years. I grew up on welfare, 1 of 5 children in a single mother household. Until I moved to Italy at age 28, I never saw the same doctor more than once at the clinic we were entitled to go to, there was continuous turn-over. I lived with chronic illness for my first 28 years, until I moved to Italy. During my first year in Italy I discovered that I have Celiac disease, an autoimmune disease in which the body cannot tolerate wheat and other cereals and their by-products. It was not only the access to very affordable universal health care in Italy that encouraged me to face and find the cause of all the symptoms that were plaguing me. Actually as a young adult in America during my college/masters years I had health care, and never put it to use. I think it was the access and the exposure to a CULTURE that perceived the right to pursue good health as a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT that allowed me to move out of the apathy I had towards my own health.
Each member of my family pays a few hundred dollars a year. We have a family doctor who is available 5 days a week, no appointment necessary. He does house calls when my children have a fever. At night and on the weekends and holidays there is no need to flood emergency rooms, there is a Guardia medica, a 24 hour doctor service in every area. I can use this service whereever I happen to find myself in Italy. All for free besides the very reasonable health tax.
I would also like to share an aspect of Italian health care that makes me very proud. In Italy, any woman has the right to: full free prenatal care, free birth, and free pediatric growth visits whether or not she is legal in this country. NO QUESTIONS ASKED, BECAUSE IT IS A HUMAN RIGHT. Finally I would like to share a collection of U-tubes that myself and other fellow Americans living in Italy have made in hopes that our country can make this leap in quality and civility. They are testimonies of our experience with Italian universal health care and our hope that America can reflect and reaffirm her wonderful spirit of democracy. Please help circulate it! Stephanie
http://www.youtube.com/user/userAirConnect#
We have a similar arrangement
We have a similar arrangement here in France.
After my husband died I was unable to get affordable health insurance in the US for my family due to pre-existing conditions. We now live in France, where I work and pay taxes. The children are happy here and I can think of no reason to ever return to the US.
Thank you. As a result of
Thank you. As a result of this column, I will submit a letter to the editor, emphasizing that over 14,000 people are losing their health insurance each day. A shocking statistic. Will your readers join me in counteracting the bombastic lies that are hitting our airwaves?
Jubilee Judy
Frere Charles, The majority
Frere Charles,
The majority of people reject the proposed health care reform not out of shelfishness but because it is a sham and an immoral peace of legislation.
Only part of the uninsured would be covered, it would contain the biggest expansion of abortion since Roe vs Wade--at taxpayers' expense--the cuts in Medicare, which would cover part of the obscene cost,would mean rationing of care for the elderly. At that is just the tip of the iceberg. Do you really believe that women and children would be better covered under the new socialized health care? We just had a taste of what we would be facing when new guidelines on breast cancer detection were unveiled lately. NO mammograms for women under 50 years old and after 50 only once every two years. Oh, yes, they are only suggestions now but under a government run health care those would be the rules. Government does not have the best interest of people in mind--cost cutting would be their criteria. And I am afraid that women would get an even shorter end of the stick.
If this reform passes it will be a disaster for American people already taxed to death and weakened by a bad economy.It would mean burdening generations to come with paying the unthinkable deficit run by this Congress and which will be inflated by the reform.
It would be so easy to believe that this health care reform would be the solution to the problem of the uninsured, but it is just the opposite. This reform is bad for everyone.
There are ways to reform health care so that everyone is insured but the current one is simply a takeover by the government cloacked in false compassion.
Just think--if it were so good why is it having such a dufficult time passing? Thank God there are still some politicians who have a conscience and know that this reform is a fraud.
No, Frere Charles, people do not oppose it because they have been lied to but because they can think for themselves and see the dangers ahead.
Castellina, you didn't cite
Castellina, you didn't cite one single fact to support your contentions. You did not cite one single example of a better way to provide health care or health insurance. It's easy to knock things down, coming up with facts and solutions is more difficult.
"Government does not have the best interest of people in mind--cost cutting would be their criteria. And I am afraid that women would get an even shorter end of the stick."
This sentence seems to assume that private insurance companies have their consumers best interests in mind. We certainly know that is not a fact because one of the reforms is to insure pre existing conditions will be covered by private insurance. Your sentence also implies you agree with Sr. Joan that women are currently getting shafted by private insurance. So what are you saying, better the shafting we know we're getting than the one you think we might get?
Way to go Colkoch1,
Way to go Colkoch1, Castellina has no idea what he is talking about.
Little CAstle writes me,
Little CAstle writes me, "Frere Charles, people do not oppose it because they have been lied to but because they can think for themselves and see the dangers ahead."
People oppose it because they have been lied to by the for-profit only medical industry and cannot think for themselves but believe the fraudulent fairy tales of danger ahead.
Join the civilized world. Make health care universal, compassionate, accessible, not-for-profit but for the relief of suffering. Get it out of the lustful, avaricious, parismonious hands of Wall Street's insurers. Greed is not good for your health.
Is NCR opposed to men
Is NCR opposed to men dedicated to religion espousing a political view? (with regard to a specific form of healthcare)? Or are they only opposed to men of religion espousing their opinions on political issues that NCR has problems with (Same-sex marriages)? If frere Charles is indeed who he claims to be, shouldn't he try not to support any political party platform, like other NCR columnists have warned the bishops about?
Colkhoch1, I don't think
Colkhoch1, I don't think anyone (including myself ) would say that the current health care system is perfect--far from it. My point is that there are ways to reform it without a big government take over. I think tort reform should certainly be considered, as well as having companies compete by allowing people to "shop around" across state lines. Provisions could be made to provide subsidized health care to the uninsured (an obscene amount of our money was given to Wall Street as "stimulus", after all) without overhauling the whole system.
I also think that reform should be gradual, trying ways to improve the system by increments and not all at once. Look, Congress has an approval rating of 21%, does that tell you that people trust such a body? Things have been said that defy credibility like Mr. Obama saying that it will not add a dime to the deficit. Also that the cost will be covered by cutting the abuses in Medicare. Well, why don't we find such abuses right now and fix them before the Government takes over the whole health care? Also that abortion in not covered when abortion mills like Planned Parenthood and NARAL are virtually salivating over the "reform". Of course Sr. Chittister's silence about abortion is deafeaning, she is still stuck in an oudated feminism portraying women as helpless when it is no longer true (BTW I am a woman, in my 50's, so I grew up in the age of feminism). When I said that a government run health care would give women the "shorter end of the stick" I was not agreeing with Sr. Chittister at all. I was commenting on the new guidelines which came out recently and debunked, in a supreme irony and impeccable timing, the belief that women would get better health care under the reformed one. In a matter of days we were given new guidelines on breast cancer and cervical cancer detection that restrict rather then enhance health care... Of course this has nothing at all to do with cost cutting!! So no, I am not saying that nothing should be done to fix health care, but if this reform smells like a scunk it is probably a scunk. Let's try something else or everybody, not only women, will be, as you say, "shafted".
Germany and Japan seem to
Germany and Japan seem to have a winning combination of a socialized foundation that guarantees coverage to all mixed with free market incentives.
Is there any country on the
Is there any country on the face of the earth that provides “total healthcare coverage”? The United Kingdom doesn’t. France doesn’t. Germany doesn’t. Canada doesn’t. The ex-Soviet Union didn’t. So why are YOU calling for it? Why this insistence on totalism in healthcare coverage?
I support the nun for making
I support the nun for making “total” healthcare her priority. Certain medical procedures needful to Muslim women (hymenorrhaphy, clitoridectomy, infibulation) can best and most safely be met with a healthcare system in this great country of ours that is “total” in scope. The nun has to be applauded for showing such sensitivity to the Islamic needs of the Muslim community in America. Allah be praised!
Dear Sr. Joan, Thank you for
Dear Sr. Joan,
Thank you for your revealing commentary.
I look forward to reading your posts as you have such a compassionate nature, kind heart and brilliant mind.
Your posts give me a lot to think about.
Blessings,
Ghosty
Great article Sister Joan, I
Great article Sister Joan, I hope that some of our bishops read it. I am also impressed by the replies of so many women to your article. I am praying that inspite of the opposition of so many conservative Catholics laity and our conservative religious leaders, the Congress will pass a health reform bill that will be a step in the right direction to provide care for the millions of people who are not covered by insurance now. God bless you sister Joan, you are a light in the darkness of the present debate on health care.
It's not hard to tell which
It's not hard to tell which is sicker; the way we treat our elderly and reverend sisters to abandonment, cold, disease and hunger.
From Sister Maureen Fiedler's recent article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/24/AR200911...
What do you mean "WE". Just
What do you mean "WE". Just because you feel guilty because you are doing nothing doesn't mean you should include "US".
Plus we don't want to pay for
Plus we don't want to pay for the healthcare of the surplus population of the failed, corrupt, backwards (and overwhelmingly Catholic, please note)countries that send us their extra mouths to feed by the hundreds of thousands every year.
Here is a point of concern
Here is a point of concern for me:
"Worse, women who try to buy their own insurance are required to pay more than men for the same policies and are denied care peculiar to a woman like...reproductive health care."
A Catholic nun supporting insurance coverage for "reproductive health care" which, for anyone who follows this issue at all knows, is usually a code name for abortion. Is this what she means? It is a key part of the discussion yet she is unclear what she means.
Almost as disturbing is that only one of the above thirty or so responses shows any concern whatsover for the unborn or Sr. Joan's potential/apparent indifference to them as show in the above quote.
Jesus cares for women, rich or poor, the elderly etc. and calls us to do the same, of course. The unborn child must be considered to be loved by Christ as much as the child's mother though.
When does God's love begin for each of us? The day we are born?
Absurd of course, yet that is how many Catholics act when they vote for men and women who believe unborn children have no rights at all, until the day they are born.
Heather, You wrote:
Heather,
You wrote:
A Catholic nun supporting insurance coverage for "reproductive health care" which, for anyone who follows this issue at all knows, is usually a code name for abortion.
To put it bluntly, you are grossly misinformed on the medical facts. There is no "code" or any other such nonsense regarding reproductive health care. Your statement is typical of the talking points promoted by the extremist antiabortion crowd — the only people looking for abortion under every bush. Such hysterical claims are part of the problem... and in no way do they contribute to a solution in our dreadful state of health care access.
.
From the time of the onset of menses, through childbearing years, on through menopause, women have unique gynecological medical needs that will impact their overall health, and any children they might conceive. It's not the trivial matter you imply it to be — nor is it a single-minded obsession with abortion. Some of these problems range from chronic painful conditions that can lead to sterility, while others can lead to medical emergencies and even death. Still other women have non-GYN chronic medical conditions such as Type I diabetes or autoimmune illness, that places them at higher risk should they become pregnant. The list of additional medical conditions and complications is quite lengthy, but surely you get the picture. Women's insurance premiums are higher because the cost of their medical needs is greater, especially during the reproductive years.
.
The the sickness and death for-profit system of private insurance often exploits GYN medical problems as a means to exclude women from any and all health care... up to and including prenatal and postnatal care should she become pregnant. Further, pregnancy is construed as a "pre-existing condition" should the woman conceive during a period of lapsed insurance while she or her husband is moving from one employer to another. In the United States the percent of fetal and maternal deaths due to lack of adequate prenatal care is a shameful scandal and should be a national embarrassment. Women are also dying by the thousands every year due to otherwise imminently curable cancers in the early stages, instead being caught too late, ...because they had no affordable insurance or cash to pay for basic GYN services. Their lives matter just as much as that of an embryo or fetus.
.
Tis truly a pity that those in the antiabortion crowd have such a narrowly confined view of what it means to be a pro-life Christian. It is equally unfortunate and exasperating that they have become the primary disseminators of false medical information. As a medical professional I've encountered the tragic wreckage they have left behind. There is no "code" presented here — it's as point-blank as I can make it for you.
"Reproductive Health Care" is
"Reproductive Health Care" is only code for elective abortion for those who mostly interested in emotional blackmail in the health care issue. I have seen many different types of health care coverage as a patient. Not the principal insured or spouse of same? No pre-natal care for you. No money to pay a doubled premium for private insurance? No pre-natal care for you. We've had to pass laws on a state by state basis in this country to force insurance companies to cover pap smears and mammograms just like other routine screening tests as indicated by standard medical criteria. All of this comes under the heading of 'reproductive health care' too.
Post new comment