The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionK.C. bishops sound alarm about ‘socialization’ of health care
Sep. 01, 2009
Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann (left) and Bishop Robert W. Finn share a laugh in this 2004 file photo. (CNS)
Opening a new front in official Catholic reaction to health care reform, the two bishops of Kansas City have issued a joint pastoral statement warning not only against an expansion of abortion or mandatory end-of-life counseling, but also the dangers of “excessive centralization” and “government socialization” of medicine.
Experts say that the critique goes beyond pronouncements offered by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, or by other American prelates, which typically have called for preserving “pluralism” in health care but otherwise seem neutral, or even favorably inclined, to new government initiatives.
In terms of the politics of reform, the statement thus appears likely to lend Catholic weight to opposition from secular conservatives to proposals for a so-called “public option.”
The pastoral statement, titled “Principles of Catholic Social Teaching and Health Care Reform,” was issued by Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of the Kansas City, Kansas, archdiocese, and Bishop Robert W. Finn of Kansas City-St. Joseph. Dated August 22, the statement was posted on-line Sept. 1.
The bishops write that President Barack Obama, “to his credit,” has made addressing the flaws in America’s health care system a major priority. Among the flaws cited by Naumann and Finn are that some 47 million people lack health insurance; that health care costs continue to rise; and that individuals with pre-existing conditions often can’t get care.
Those defects, the bishops write, underscore the need for “authentic reform” to provide a greater “safety net for people in need.”
“In evaluating health care reform proposals, perhaps we ought to ask ourselves whether the poor would have access to the kind and quality of health care that you and I would deem necessary for our families,” they write. The bishops include legal immigrants among groups which merit improved care.
Nonetheless, Naumann and Finn also warn that “change for change’s sake, change which expands the reach of government beyond its competence, would do more harm than good.”
The bishops assert that “our country, in some ways, is the envy of people from countries with socialized systems of medical care.” Grounding their critique in the principle of subsidiarity, which holds that higher levels of authority should not usurp what can be done better or more efficiently at lower levels, the bishops write that a “centralized government bureaucracy” poses three risks:
Preview NCR's Family Life Issue
Watch this video from NCR Editor Dennis Coday for highlights from our annual Family Life special section.
You won't find these articles on our website. Subscribe now to receive all the content from each biweekly issue.
- “A loss of personal responsibility”
- “Reduction in personalized care for the sick”
- “Higher costs”
Although Catholic teaching asserts a right to health care, Naumann and Finn say that this right “does not necessarily suppose an obligation on the part of the government to fund it.”
“In our American culture, Catholic teaching about the ‘right’ to healthcare is sometimes confused with structures of entitlement,” the bishops write. “The teaching of the universal church has never been to suggest a government socialization of medical services.”
A hasty expansion of government programs, the bishops warn, could create “a future tax burden which is both unjust and unsustainable” as well as fostering “permanent dependency for individuals or families upon the state.”
In that light, Naumann and Finn propose that “some system of vouchers – at least on a theoretical level—is worthy of consideration.” Vouchers, they write, could give individuals an incentive to make prudent financial decisions and to take common-sense preventative measures, such as better diet and exercise, while still giving them a direct say in their own care.
Noting that 85 percent of Americans have insurance, they say that in some cases people lacking health insurance are not taking advantage of programs open to them, such as Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.
On the pro-life front, Naumann and Finn strongly reject any expansion of abortion, as well as mandated end-of-life counseling for the elderly or disabled.
“Any health care reform package must keep intact our current public polices protecting taxpayers from being coerced to fund abortions,” they write. “Given the penchant of our courts over the past thirty-five years to claim unarticulated rights in our Constitution, the explicit exclusion of so-called ‘abortion services’ from coverage is essential.”
Similarly, Naumann and Finn say that “health care reform legislation must clearly articulate the rights of conscience for individuals and institutions,” warning that otherwise Catholic health care in America could be jeopardized.
“The loss of Catholic hospitals and health care providers, which currently do more to provide pro bono services to the poor and the marginalized than their for-profit counterparts, would be a tremendous blow to the already strained health care system,” they write.
On mandatory end-of-life counseling, Naumann and Finn echo a recent warning from the National Association of Pro-Life Nurses that such a requirement “would place undue pressure on the individual or guardian to opt for measures to end life, and would send the message that they are no longer of value to society.”
Naumann and Finn acknowledge that while no Catholic can disregard the basic moral principles outlined in their statement, “there can and likely will be vigorous debate about their proper application.”
I hear only Republican party
I hear only Republican party talking points in the bishops' message. Who in Kansas City speaks for the the poor, the unemployed, the underemployed, and others who lack access to healthcare for lack of adequate insurance? Certainly it is not them. I am sure that both bishops have accesss to very fine healthcare. If they lacked such access, as many laypeople in their dioceses do, they might show more pastoral concern and support the president's healthcare initiatives. Their claim that Mr. Obama supports socialized medicine is a misstatement that, in justice and honesty, they ought not propagate.
It seems that these bishops
It seems that these bishops are not familiar with the gospel of Matthew; "what you do to the least of My brethren, you do unto Me". and notice that in Matthew no mention is made of 'citizenship', no mention of 'socialism', only to take care of the sick, the hungry, the thirsty, invite the stranger in...so within the flock of Kansas is there any mention of the corporeal works of mercy. We are aware of the major swing to the right, the Church has made, and that these bishops are selected solely on such a swing...obviously, it is not the Holy Spirit pushing the swing, and it has nothing to do with Divine Providence, but politics alone. Does anyone truly believe these bishops belong to the apostolic succession. Unfortunately, the Church hierarchy tolerates no dissent, and if you are investigated as our 'sisters' are, there is no audi alteram partem...no wonder the Church is left with only its constipated members.
I agree that they certainly
I agree that they certainly missed a teaching opportunity by not demanding care for all immigrants, regardless of status. Some of their flock could use the lesson.
You think that it's a
You think that it's a misstatement that President Obama supports socialized medicine. You're a fool. He supports socialized everything. He's a socialist!
Medicare is "socialized
Medicare is "socialized medicine". Social Security is "socialism", our education system is "socialism". To have an opiton for a govt. health care program is allowing those who don´t want it, not to have to participate in it. If anyone is happy with his/her plan, they will be able to keep it. That is hardly the position of a socialist.
It is clear, my friend, that
It is clear, my friend, that you are sadly misinformed both about the definition of socialism and socialist (outright public ownership of all means of production and distribution), and about the actual proposals for legislation. The most extreme proposal there is would in effect permit (not require) that people join a medical insurance program like Medicare. Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIPS ....
The only "socialist" medical scheme I am aware of affecting all ethnicities of American men and women is the armed forces medical service. Are you suggesting that's "evil?"
He's only a socialist by the
He's only a socialist by the Austrian School's definition. He's more of a corporatist, or else he would advocate single payer insurance and would have taken over 100% shares of AIG, Chrysler, GM, etc., rather than having limited involvement. Throwing around the term socialist imprecisely just makes the right wing look ignorant.
...read other posts on ths
...read other posts on ths subject and you'll soon determine how silly your post is.
You are a fool.
You are a fool.
Where in their statement did
Where in their statement did they claim that Pres. Obama supports socialized medicine?
As a Canadian,
As a Canadian, long-accustomed to living in a Country where there is Government sponsored health care for every citizen, I am appalled at this ill-informed and theologically misshapened comment, by these American Bishops. They might have done well to consult their Canadian collegues before issuing such a misleading missive. No Canadian Bishop,looking bemusedly at the CNN summer rerun of an issue we dealth with decades ago - under christian inspiration - would agree with them or even take them seriously.
Here there are no "death panels", on end of life issues. With respect to which, however, their are "panels" on spiritual care of the dying, on accomodating and fasciliating respect for their various spiritual traditions, as a matter of Government policy and funding - not likely a high priority for Insurance companies who are more likely concerned with which procedures they will pay for and which they won't. Do Insurance Companies in the States fund Multi-faith Chaplancies and spiritual care for the dying?
Life and death are not matters of profit and loss or of any business template or corporate criterion, which often passes for what the bishops term "efficiency"?. In fact, a Harvard study , some years ago , I believe, found the Canadian medical system more efficient than the American.
Why is it that on life and health issues, they are so willing to turm life and heath care issues over to the corporate vagaries of a pay cheque and the Dow and yet are so willing , presumably on the basis of the same principal of "subsidarity", to turn national security and death delivery systems, like the miltary, over to the State? Why pay for the rifle in the hand of a Marine confronting a terrorist, and not therapy for his fixed or no income mother confronting cancer?
On the basis of this principle, they may as well issue a pastoral letter in support of turning the Department of Defense over to Black Water who they presumeably believe would do a better job. Do they believe the State is incompetent to run the military? Are they prepare to rail against the spector of a "socialized" military, in terms of some latter day "Minute men" ideology? Same nonsense. Surely and morally national health care is as important a collective responsibility as national security.
In essence, we are meeting here the same Republican Christ that leads Sarah Palin to apparently believe that Jesus was a card-carrying member of the American Rifle Association and, given his ecomomic circumstances, not likely in possession of a health insurance card.
For a Canadian, this debate is a matter of a moral-political deja vu, like turning in to an "I love Lucy" re-run, a program from a by-gone era, and leaves one wondering if Americans will ever really "get it". As one friend recently remarked to me, " I can't imagine living in a country like that. Thank God we don't". And that about sums it up,and theologically sums it up hopefully for the majority of American Bishops, as it did for Teddy Kennedy.
Beneath all the Scholastic baffle gaff, one suspects there is the surreptious political intention to keep the heat on Obama over the abortion issue. And it shouldn't be taken as more than that.
Here again, they are likely to lose because the down-side of the Church position -a return to back-ally abortions and the resultant deaths of women - is a Marie Antoinnette solution - "then let them die"- which is not a moral position. Their only hope then rests with the insurance companies who will gratefully oblige by refusing to cover this procedure.
I am not, by the way, morally in favour of abortion, nor am I in favor of " Then let them die", which is socially, morally and politically the real crux of the issue. To this, the Church does not have a real solution. Most thoughtful Catholic politicans recognize this.
Once a solution ceases to be real, it ceases to be moral. Let's recognize that there are unrealities on both sides of this issue and, at the same time, acknowledge that morality doesn't "subsist" in some celestial fantasy land , located somewhere south of the Andromeda galaxy. And, given the bishops position, unfortunately for Dorothy, not in Kansas either.
In all of this, it is necessary to further recognize and give due moral weight to the fact that life is lived under the inevitable sign of the tragic which no boolian morality will ever erase and it is for this reason that compassion begins where moralism ends and with it the political wisdom that is able to deal with the unavoidable ambiguities of life. From up here, it appears that Obama is more serenely in possession of that, than are these episcopal Kansas City ideologues.
Thank you Michael, There is a
Thank you Michael,
There is a segment of the US populace that is frantically against socialism, but when you try to discuss with them what they are against it is as if any thing the government would get involved with is socialism and they are against it. It is as if socialism or socialistic policies are made in hell by the devil himself. There was one person in a town hall meeting yelling and screaming, "keep the G. D. government out of my medicare!" It seems that no one remembers that our own space project to the moon was completely a socialized project or that fire and police departments are all socialized. The post office is socialized and yet there are other private companies that compete.
If we look at some history, we could recall that during the twenties, the fire departments were run by private enterprise in Chicago and many fires were just not fought. A fire department would drive right past a blaze saying that house was not on the list to protect. The same type of thing is happening in medicine. Some people can not get insurance because of pre existing conditions. They are put in an ever expanding pool of the uninsurable or worse- people with insurance are being denied payment because the insurance company comes back at them saying that they did not fill out their application correctly.
If you go back to some of the original debates in congress during the thirties and forties when insurance companies were given phenomenal tax breaks that no other industry enjoys because of the risk to the insurance business, you will find that the companies at that time to get congress to offer these breaks (ones that they still currently benefited from,) promised not to pool patients into healthy and sick categories or to select out people because of age. These companies have broken more of their word each decade.
Our real problem now is to tame some of the financial capitalism that is used by banks and insurance companies. The taming of industrial capitalism in the thirties was don to keep the county from coming apart and for the same reason financial capitalism needs taming now. There should be more rules and regulations. The banks and insurance companies know this and The Fed knows this but they are fighting with big bucks any attempted change calling it socialism. Let’s use definitions properly. The word fascism has been used by the right to describe any thing that they do not like but the true meaning of this word is government by corporation or business interest. Our country constitutionally only describes three branches of government, but we have an ever growing branch of government ran by corporations through well paid voices in Washington by splashing money at our representatives and bureaucrats. This group to be fair is the fourth branch of government that is completely outside or Constitution. This structure is the American model of fascism that currently exists. This is what corporations fear will be understood so they try to persuade society that any change in government balance is this horrible devilish socialism. Democracy is an attempt allow government by the people, it does not define what economic structure is better. Surely there are some social democracies in Europe that are more democratic than our republic. The idea that any amount of government organization is socialism is pure hog wash because pure socialism takes place when the government controls all the means of production and dispersal and even the most leftist of the European governments don't have that. Laissez-faire capitalism has many evils as does pure socialism. The evil of each is loss of control by the electorate. Let's face it there is too much greed in Laissez-faire capitalism and greed (one of the capital sins) is directly contrary to what Christ had to teach us in his greatest of Sermons- the Sermon on the Mount.
Now we have many people without health insurance, many of them are the weakest members of society the very young and the poor. Will we as Christians support the model that Christ gave us in the Sermon on The Mount or will we follow Neo Conservative Bishops that are a part of an established oligarchy of greed?
Peace and understanding,
R. Dennis Porch, MD
Thank, Denis Your pointed
Thank, Denis
Your pointed insights, knowledge and obvious compassion are deeply appreciated
Michael
Dennis I came accross this
Dennis
I came accross this statement by the Canadian Bishops dated October ,1994. it is called:
"To Live and Die in a Compassionate Community".
It is immediately concerned with euthanasia which at that time, through a court case, was attracting a lot of attention. What strikes me as even more significant than their response to the immediate issue -which has largely faded with the passage of time,- is the enduring significance for the Church and the Country of their reflection on Health care, which underpins their response to the issue.
Well over a decade ago, they took a look at the American health care situation, and offered what has turned out be a very discerning comment.
" A society" ,the bishops said, "which gives primacy to the question of control...could ultimately become one which is fundamentally concerned with power". And that, it seems to me, is what has happen. The debate we are witnessing today is less about health care per se, than it is about power, profit and control.
Dennis , you make this point very personally when you tell me that in your experience as a physican practicing in American, patients with pre-existing conditions are denied Insurance. In effect, you are telling me, that -depending on the seriousness of the condition,- when you are denied funding you may well be denied life.
All of which, means that America is already operating under a system which, for many patients, amounts to ad hoc death panels, in which the Grim Reaper appears, in the person of your insurer, who first takes what's in your wallet and then your life. That's a kind of metaphysical Ponzi scheme - a banker's version of euthanasia. Are things really sometimes that barbaric or do I misunderstand you? If not, then how is it that two Catholic Bishops , apparently in good standing, want to be complicit, in any way, with such a scheme?
What happened to human dignity of which the Canadian Bishops felt moved to speak in 1994-
"We call for that human dignity, which binds us to one another, especially in the face of social forces which separate us from one another. We do so not only reflecting on our Catholic values but upon the life of our Nation, which is deeply rooted historically in a primacy of the community and a search for the good of all"
It is true that more is involved here than health care. In the view of the Canadian Bishops, that "more" is not power and control, as,- masked in a "freedom" rhetoric and subtracting the requisite throw away lines about compassion, - it seems to be for these Kansas City prelates. It is, in their words, this-
"When we deal with matters of life{central to which is health care} we deal with the heart of our relationships, the place of the person in society and the bonds which link us together."
For spiritual guidance on the health care issue, I would suggest American Catholics look to Canada not Kansas.
Please do not lump all of
Please do not lump all of Kansas together! :) There are indeed thoughtful, sensible people of faith here. Though we sometimes feel we're voices blowing in the prairie winds.
I pray that health care reform might be a reality in our day. We are in desparate need of ensuring that all our brothers and sisters can access needed care at the needed time without undue burden. Let us continue to work for justice, that all might know peace.
What Republican is saying
What Republican is saying that we should extend coverage to immigrants or is saying that pre and post-natal care should be provided to all? The Finn and Naumann are saying we need to find ways to help everyone. People need to actually read this statement before they judge. I read the bishops talking about solidarity and the importance of having a safety net for all, that's them speaking for the poor.
Is it possible for NCR to do
Is it possible for NCR to do a survey in each diocese to see what coverage is available to priests, sisters, and lay? I have moved to several states and it seems the clergy has better coverage than that provided to the lay workers who keep the Church going. Many/most religious congregations usually opt to have their own insurance because it is better than that provided by the diocese in which they minister.
I agree, sounds like republican "same o same o."
Mr. Haggerty, You are
Mr. Haggerty,
You are correct. Mr. Obama is the one behaving like a true follower of Christ. The Bishops are behaving like Republican shills. May God have mercy on them and help them see the grievous error of their ways.
And so the spokesmen for the
And so the spokesmen for the Republican Catholic Church now give us a lecture supporting free market capitalism. Are these buffoons so needy of a pat on the head from their wealthy idols that they would sell out those most in need? Notice that they did not even resort to waving the abortion canard, but just use neo-con economic drivel to support their position. One can only look forward to their resignation after their masters wear them out.
Who would pay for "some
Who would pay for "some system of vouchers," and who would administer it? And why do I think I am asking questions the Republican propaganda factory hasn't thought about and wouldn't want to consider answering?
I have to agree that vouchers
I have to agree that vouchers sound like taxpayer money going to insurance companies. Also, the Bishop of Sioux City, Iowa has issued a statement that seems to state there should be no "goverment option" and there should be no redistribution of money from one group to another to pay for health insurance.
Vouchers pit the individual
Vouchers pit the individual (or the individual family) against the health insurance companies that would continue to wield tremendous clout in the marketplace.
Strength in numbers.
That's why we have unions (those that are still around, anyway).
Oops, bishops don't like to negotiate with unions.
Be honest, Bishop Naumann and
Be honest, Bishop Naumann and Bishop Finn, socialized medicine is something completely different from all the various things that have been proposed. In fact, it is even different from having every citizen contribute a percentage of income in order to have the costs of his or her illnesses covered by the government. There is nothing in any of the proposals that would nationalize the medical profession in any way. People with sufficient means still would be able to get elective procedures, like abortions, even though they are not something that "we the people" pay for on behalf of one another.
As a Catholic American
As a Catholic American citizen I am embarassed by the replies to our Bishop's stand on health care reform. And to the person that suggested we just "get over" the abortion issue...is he really Catholic??? It is most unfortunate that the liberal right is willing to give up the right our fore fathers died for. If things continue along this same path I fear one day my grandchildren will look at me and ask why we allowed our country to destroy all sense of pride and an individual's drive and ambition. Somewhere along the way we slowly; almost without notice lost our work ethic and the principles of which this country was founded on. It is time to stop; evaluate the direction we want this country to proceed and then speak up. We cannot allow decisions to be made that are contrary to what the majority of our population wants. When President Obama signs up for a federal health plan, followed by our senators and congressmen, then and only then will I gladly stand behind them.
Concerned Citizen
By the way Concerned itizen,
By the way Concerned itizen, President Obama and all members of Congress already do participate in a Federal Government health plan. What Obama is trying to do, against the wishes of the insurance companies is work out a system whereby all in our country will have an effective affordable plan. Also by the way, Meidcare, which already funds most of the medical care received by our senior citizens is a Federal Plan, hence a form of the so-called "socialized medicine". As one of the other commentators has stated unfortunately our "buffoon bishops" like the two from Kansas qualify as committed spokesmen for the "Republican Catholic Church".
The majority of our
The majority of our population WANTS health care reform..and more than what the Republican Catholic Church (that is too funny!) wants. That was clear in the election of recent past.
For your information
For your information President Obama,our senators and representatives already have federally funded health care. Yes it's true.The rest of us want to join that system and would be able to if healthcare is written into law,which,hopefully it will be soon.
That would be the public
That would be the public option for Senators, who are part of an insurance exchange where they have several provider choices - unlike the singe choice most non-governmental workers have. Obama is covered as Commander-in-Chief. If you want the same care, you need to go to the nearest Recruiting Office and raise your right hand. I get much the same care, since I have a rare adrenal disease and get my care at NIH as part of a teaching and research protocol (for free). I've got to tell you, government health care is not bad.
As an American physician that
As an American physician that is a part of a health care system that is broken as we spend the most per capita in health care in the world, but have a system that is rated at best 25th in the world, and even as low as 40th, I must ask these two bishops what political party they are supporting. Why are they in the business of supporting political parties in the first place? Seems to me that one just need to follow the financial trail of the political oligarchy which they belong. They certainly are not attempting to solve the problem but have become voices of the neo conservatives of the radical right. You my good men certainly are not acting Christ Like and I wonder if you have ever tried to understand Matthew's Gospel. Our Catholic leadership is certainly bankrupt, broken as bad as the medical delivery system in the United States, and this body of men has rightfully earned the disrespect of most of its membership. This is almost as sad a day as these men hiding their own sexual and financial crisis. We as Catholics can not turn to these old men for leadership, as they only spew delusional fear amongst the faithful. I call on all who believe in Christ to cut these men off at their financial source. Be careful where you contribute your Catholic charitable dollar. I too, am a concerned Catholic citizen
Sincerely,
R. Dennis Porch, MD
To anonymous concerned
To anonymous concerned citizen,
Do I understand you to mean that you are blaming the victims of poverty in this country, and secondarily assuming them to be unworthy of health care and life?? You indicate the abortion issue as your litmus test for who is "really Catholic", yet your assumptions about those living in poverty suggest that perhaps your own understanding of Catholic social justice teaching has a few significant gaps. There but for good fortune and timely breaks, go you, your family, or anyone. A true Christian IS his brother's keeper.
.
Many citizens who now live in poverty became impoverished due to catastrophic illness or injury in the family. Many were defrauded of benefits by for-profit insurance loop-holes; others could not afford rising insurance premiums. Some of them are families of war veterans who returned home severely disabled and in need of special ongoing care, and unable to now live independent of their parents or other family members. Others found themselves unemployed due to out-sourcing, down-sizing and jobs going over seas to cheaper labor markets. Those who lose jobs at age 50 and above, have more difficulty becoming re-employed in a smaller youth-oriented market... and savings are quickly exhausted. Rising numbers of women and children living in poverty, are often the result of losing a spouse to death or divorce... or war deployment. There are many examples of the source of poverty. To sneer at the suffering of the poor or suggest they lack a correct work ethic, and so "deserve their fate", is to be both cruel and uninformed.
.
The deregulated capitalism and wealth of Reaganomics did not trickle-down as advertised. Middle class citizens today are only a pay-check or two removed from destitution should calamity strike. If you and your family are financially well off and have adequate health care, then you are blessed, but not necessarily more deserving than anyone else. Should your family fall into poverty at some later time, hopefully those around you will be less judgmental in their response to your time of need. Hopefully at that time, Americans will have grown in empathy and charity, and there will be access to proper health care for you... even if you cannot afford to pay for it.
And, FYI, both Medicare and VA medical care, are federal programs run by the government. Those who depend on these programs would not be willing to give them up for any reason. May I suggest you obtain your health care reform information from a credible source... NOT from FOX News or ill-informed partisan bishops.
Private insurance already
Private insurance already provides abortion services and it is heavily subsized as a deduction on business income taxes. Also, if someone is poor as far as cash income, assuming they pay taxes at all, they can write off their abortion as a health cost on schedule A. The bottom line is, if you pay taxes at all or buy anything commercially, some fraction of your money is already paying for abortions. Of course, that amount is quite small and is the reason that Catholic Ethics texts (at least the one I had in pre-law/minor seminary) state that the fact that abortion is legal in a pluralistic society is no grounds for not paying your taxes. This was in the mid-80s and I would hope that the hierarchy did not get heavy handed about changing the text, which was based on natural law theory.
Pretty good presentation of
Pretty good presentation of Republican "talking points," I'd say.
When did the job description
When did the job description for "bishop" include "cheerleader for capitalism"?
This is quite shocking and I
This is quite shocking and I must point out two falsehoods with these bishops' statement.
The bishops assert that “our country, in some ways, is the envy of people from countries with socialized systems of medical care.”
Actually, countries such as Canada and Great Britain feel their systems are the "jewel in the crown" of their respective countries.
With regard to the risks of healthcare reform, they name:
* “A loss of personal responsibility”
* “Reduction in personalized care for the sick”
* “Higher costs”
Under the present for profit insurance market, there already is a notable reduction in personalized care for the sick. Many sick, quite simply, do not get care at all. This already exists and is one of the driving forces behind the need for reform.
And as for higher costs? Again, reducing rapidly escalating costs that, without reform efforts, have geometrically increased beyond inflation, is also one of the driving forces behind healthcare reform.
How can these bishops preach The Good Samaritan on Sunday and come out with these statements the rest of the week?
Reading the daily paper out
Reading the daily paper out of Ciudad Juarez in Mexico
http://www.diario.com.mx/
I find the statistics on people passing from Texas to receive medical care in Mexico. Living in a border town farther west, I find elderly every day crossing to get their prescriptions filled and their dental and eye care done.
See "Sicko" by Michael Moore. People in civilized nations like France, Canada and Great Britian find our "system" incomprehensibly unjust and uncaring. Not a one of them had any envy of the US system run only for the benefit of Wall Street profits.
The Juarez newspaper also reports the number of elderly in Texas losing their homes and all their savings to cover the high cost of their slow and negligent death.
Increasingly, they DON"T
Increasingly, they DON"T preach "The Good Samaritan" on Sundays. When is the last time you heard one of them preach against capital punnishment???
Or the war in Iraq, or the
Or the war in Iraq, or the imbalance of earth´s natural resourses, or the imbalance of the distrubition of wealth...
BISHOP; THE END OF LIFE
BISHOP; THE END OF LIFE COUNSELING AS WRITTEN IS VOLUNTARY. CAN YOU UNDERSTAND BEYOND YOUR REPUBLICAN RIGHT WING MEMBERS, VOLUNTARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND, THIS OBSESSION WITH ABORTION IS GETTING TIRESOME. LET'S HAVE SOME STATEMENTS ON THE ALREADY BORN THAT ARE SUFFERING, THE CHILDREN IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD. HOW SAD THAT THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS HAVE BEEN LOST AND THE CHURCH IS JUST ANOTHER CORPORATION.
Anonymous, well said.
Anonymous,
well said. Wow.
Peace,
José
The dear priests have not
The dear priests have not really read the actual bill in question. There is NO mandatory end-of-life counseling - the priests have been snookered!! There is NO abortion requirements...please take the time to read and listen to those who wrote the bill. Oh for HEAVEN'S SAKE!
Laurena - you really are a
Laurena - you really are a person of Christian Charity when you write the bishops have been 'snookered.'
Not being as charitable as you I state with very strong conviction that they fully know exactly what they are doing.
What is especially sad is that they may well think that they are doing it in God's name.
Sadly, some idealogue in the
Sadly, some idealogue in the chancery probably wrote something for them. Embarrassing.
I wish the bishops would
I wish the bishops would stick to what they know and let the healthcare plans move forward. Their daft reference to expanding abortions and death panels are nowhere in the new healthcare bill and will only scare people into opposing the bill "because the bishops said so." Maybe we have to take a series of compromise steps forward to solve the problem, but never put it on hold until it is just what everyone wants. That day will never come.
I'm glad to learn that the bishops are aware that 47 million Americans are hanging out there without healthcare. Of course, none of the 47 million are bishops. The church has the best healthcare plans in the country.
What do they know except what
What do they know except what their Republican cronies tell them.
As I read I thought I was listening to a Fox news commentary.
Who pays for the Bishops' Health care?
I take issue with Brother
I take issue with Brother Ed's comment "the church has the best healthcare plan in the country". Not in my diocese they don't, which is Archbishop Naumann's diocese, by the way. As an employee of the archdiocese, the monthly premiums are a huge drain on our income and far larger than the premiums we paid when I worked previous jobs. Our co-pays are higher than what I've ever experienced with other healthcare plans before, and our costs in general are substantially higher than what I've experienced previously. And all on a church employee's salary, trying to support my family. That is something the bishops should be addressing.
An do they stand any chance
An do they stand any chance of losing THEIR "socialized" medical care, thanks to all of the loyal pew potatoes?
Just when you think the
Just when you think the bishops could not possibly dig a hole any deeper, here they go again........mad men....stark raving mad men.......the G in GOP must stand for God.....there is no other explanation.......
They seem to be dancing on
They seem to be dancing on the edge of defiance, since I think the Pope would disagree with them on the "public option."
They are their own popes. The
They are their own popes. The one in Rome is too liberal to suit them.
Aside from the concerns about
Aside from the concerns about the manner in which the health-care reform would address the question of abortion--which is a profoundly Roman Catholic view of the matter, the one that is needed--this statement of the Kansas City bishops is so politically driven and so much a reflection of the American "culture war" mentality, that it is nothing but outrageous. The statement that "our country, in some ways, is the envy of people from countries with socialized systems of medical care” is simply not true. Nobody in the Western world envies the American system of health care! I have been in this country for almost two decades, I love it for so many reasons, but its health care is one of the most shameful products of the neo-liberal approach to capitalism. The Roman Catholic Church in the United States and its leadership will work toward its mission if they address, among other things, the social injustices of such capitalism. The alarm about the "socialization" of health care is sheer, pure, shameful politics, not Roman Catholicism at its best!
Sadly these two bishops are
Sadly these two bishops are showing their partisanship and are deluding themselves. And it's positively laughable that they believe that we are the envy of the rest of the world who have universal health coverage. The statement that they are "Grounding their critique in the principle of subsidiarity, which holds that higher levels of authority should not usurp what can be done better or more efficiently at lower levels" rings hollow from bishops who would never think to do the same thing in their dioceses' parishes. Perhaps some of their counterparts in the rest of the world who have universal coverage can sit them down and explain the immorality of the United States health care system. It's anti-life despite what these two Republican bishops say.
Do the bishops every read
Do the bishops every read their own documents? I would suggest they go back and read their 1993 document on the right of people to health care...
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/comphealth.shtml
Do they read papal documents or encyclicals either? If anyone's not educated in today's church, it seems to be the bishops!
Since when does abortion override every good thing??? I read where one bishop said no health care reform was better than having a reform that provided abortions...so it's OK to just write off thousands of people who need medical care? How is that pro-life??
Thank you for taking me back
Thank you for taking me back to 1993 when the Spirit of Vatican II was dancing in the Parish, I see the Church hierarchy as politicians and not as representatives of the Spirit of Christ. Deny healthcare to the 47 million, which is growing, because of a "maybe" chance that funds will go for abortion is not in line with the loving God I follow.
So they are falling for the
So they are falling for the scare tactics! And bishops are supposed to lead rather than follow?
Frankly I like the idea of end of life counseling as too often poorer people don't know there is help out there to LIVE rather than just give up and die! People with healthcare don't realize how little some without know or expect from the medical field but I know many people who think they just have to die if they get sick because they don't know what they can do otherwise.
Abortions aren't covered because of the Hyde Amendment. They would have to repeal that law first and the bishops know this so what is their true aim here?
Vouchers to help pay for insurance arent' going to help my sister who is one of those caught between the cracks being too young for Medicare and too rich at $800 per month for Medicaid. She works parttime but doesn't get enough hours to pay for much so she's worried about turning on the heater this winter or using too much water in her water-rationing city. There is no way she can pay for healthcare and still put food in her stomach so hearing this from these bishops just makes my blood boil. To think they'd help the healthcare bill fail to pass over an abortion issue that isn't even there makes me sick to my stomach.
How interesting. When the
How interesting. When the multi-billion dollar bailouts resulted in the taxpayers becoming majority shareholders in financial institutions, I didn't hear anyone worrying about socialized banking. "Do you want some Washington bureaucrat determining your access to ATMs?"
It's not health care reform that is at stake, it's health insurance reform. When health care is regulated by corporate MBA's who care more for profit and their potential bonuses, than for patient well-being, the 85 percent of Americans who do have insurance cannot rest assured that their needs will be met when the crucial time comes.
It's obvious to me that
It's obvious to me that Neumann and Finn have few basic moral principles. There are many good and thoughtful bishops in America, it's a shame that the faithful in KC are only afforded these two. What is wrong with America when we no longer worry about the least of our brothers and sisters. You know if these two were serious about providing health care, they could put money into the Catholic hospitals in KC to provide care. It is disquieting to listen to their voices as they use the term 'Catholic health care' instead of health care.
I agree that abortion is a great moral dilemma here in the US, and we should work towards the day when the need for it no longer exists but if the bishops actually read any of the bills, they would understand that the Hyde law is still the law of the land. All these two need to do is convince the members of their diocese not to have abortions. There is so much wrong in our beloved country, that these two should spend their time and the faithful's money in causes that are real instead of promoting misleading fears
Watching from overseas the
Watching from overseas the hysteria in the US over Obama's health care reforms I was bemused to read the statement by the 2 Kansa Bishops “our country, in some ways, is the envy of people from countries with socialized systems of medical care.”
Having lived in the US and worked in the health care system, I know which system I would prefer. The assertions made about socialised health care by the 2 bishops are at best suspect and at worst plain wrong with little sound evidence to support them.
It is interesting to note that in my country when there have been attempts by government to reform the health system, i.e. more privatisation, the Catholic Bishops using the same Catholic social teaching have come out strongly in support of socialised healthcare. Just goes to show that social teaching like theological enquiry is influenced by the socio-political context that it emanates from. Unlike those who support a centralised church, I guess one shoe doesn't fit all.
In other words health care
In other words health care reform, particularly a single payer system would cut into the "profit" of nonprofit Roman Catholic health care systems. Then I wouldn't see turfing of the unisured from the RC hospitals in town to the university where I work. Bravo to these two men on the continued dissolution of the message of Jesus to love your neighbor as yourself. The voucher idea sounds familiar as well. Just can't quite place the context in which I have heard it...
These guys need to be TAXED
These guys need to be TAXED on every piece of property in their diocese. I am totally sick of the lies being put forth by right wing Republican Catholics ... the true abomination! Since when did the RC church become the "Republican Party at Prayer?"
Anyone for a lawsuit ending
Anyone for a lawsuit ending the Church's tax-free status?
Are we saying here that we
Are we saying here that we should each grade our own dirt roads, plow our own snow covered roads, stop using Medicaid, Medicare, Veterans administration healthcare and Social Security? For surely they are government run. And I might say they are working for those who use them.
SCHIP has more families now asking for coverage for their children than is currently funded for. People are waiting for years to get their disability accepted by Medicaid and SS.
This economy calls for new approaches in a time when people have lost jobs, homes, insurance coverage, investments were wiped out, and their relatives homes are full with other relatives.
WE have only to look at the church around the country and see how devasted it's coffers are during this time of economic hard times.
The answers to the Bishop's concerns have been covered by President Obama many times. The Bishop's seems to be running in fear and now talking in fear. There is no substance to their declarations. At least they did not provide any. Where are their facts to declare such a pulpit statement?
Stop their GOP gravy train.
Stop their GOP gravy train. Stop giving money to the Church.
No money! Be honest. Have
No money! Be honest. Have you ever given money to the Church? Usually people who say this have never given a dime to further God's work on earth.
Scratch a bishop and find a
Scratch a bishop and find a Republican! These two clowns are meddling in politics and should lose the tax-free status for their diocese.
The arrogance of power!
They have lost touch with the faithful and their calling. Let's hope these guys retire soon!
Catholic Teaching Catholic
Catholic Teaching
Catholic teaching doesn't forbid the government from providing services citizens have a right to have. Services like education, social services, and others. So why would "healthcare" which is a right be any different. It seems that the Bishop and the Arch Bishop should be better informed on what is in the current proposed bills before they begin finding fault and publishing misinformed statements to those they are responsible to truthfully inform.
The bishops have one point;
The bishops have one point; just looking at the structures in the Roman and diocesan offices one can immediately see the dangers of "excessive centralization".
If they object to end of life counseling then they need to clean up their own house. When my mother was in the local Catholic hospital, the hospital did end of life counseling without being asked!
Indeed, the centralization of
Indeed, the centralization of the RC Church has proceeded with unprecedented force in recent decades -- see Nicholas Lash, Theology for Pilgrims (U. of Notre Dame Press; 2008). With negative consequences for the renewal opted for at Vatican II.
These hierarchs provide another example with their incompetence showing.
These right-wing hierarchs
These right-wing hierarchs don't know what they're talking about. They demean what they label "socialized" medicine but have not experienced health care in France, Belgium and Austria as I have. They join the ranks of the sore losers from the recent election and their viewspoints fly in the face of Catholic social teaching
It is not for nothing that the World Health Organization (W/H.O.) ranks the US 37th among the nations of the world in health care. Got that, your Excellencies? All those so-called "Socialist" countries you don't like rank far above the US - France being number one in alist of 190 countries.
Source:
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
Yes, they are indeed sore
Yes, they are indeed sore losers from the last election as were most of the loud mouths protesting at Notre Dame last spring. It's very clear that the underlying motive here is Spite. They aim to thwart Obama (and their Kansas homegirl Sebelius who is equally hated) on any meaningful reform, hopefully resulting in his defeat and a new "Pro-Life" Republican administration in 2013 that would help to keep healthcare on the back burner for another quarter century. Pro-life indeed.
The bishops could have simply
The bishops could have simply stated the Catholic social teaching perspectives without diving so deeply into their own, right wing, conservative evaluation of how health care reform should be achieved. And that they would buy into the extremist, right wing lies (that others such as Canadians or the British envy our health care, or that there would be mandatory end-of-life counseling, etc.) shows that this was not a statement to expound Catholic teaching, but a political attempt to support the very rich health care industry obstruct real reform. I think that they should be required to live without healthcare or with health care that puts profit before welfare so that they could understand what God's people are really experiencing in this country. I pray that the USCCB will condemn this statement and correct the people's perception of Catholic teaching on the matter of health care reform.
Post new comment