The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionEditorial: National Catholic Reporter backs health bill
Mar. 18, 2010
Patients wait for care in the emergency department at Good Samaritan Hospital Medical Center in West Islip, N.Y. (CNS file photo 2009)
Congress, and its Catholics, should say yes to health care reform.
We do not reach this conclusion as easily as one might think, given the fact that we have supported universal health care for decades, as have the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Catholic Health Association and other official and non-official organs of the Catholic church. There are, to be sure, grave problems with the bill the House will consider in the next few days. It maintains the squirrelly system of employer-based health care coverage that impedes cost reduction. Its treatment of undocumented workers is shameful. It is unnecessarily complicated, even Byzantine, in some of its provisions. It falls short of providing true universal coverage.
Nonetheless, the choice Congress faces is between the status quo and change -- and the current bill is a profoundly preferable step in the direction of positive change. The legislation will lower costs, not only for individuals and small businesses currently burdened by rising premiums, but for the Medicare and Medicaid programs, which threaten to strangle the federal budget. It will extend health care coverage to 30 million Americans who currently lack it. Finally, a society that covers most of its citizens will be a society more likely to eventually cover everyone -- our immigrant brothers and sisters included.
Much of the focus on the bill in these last days, and not only in the Catholic world, has been on its provisions regarding abortion. All sides agreed to abide by the spirit of the Hyde Amendment, which for more than 30 years has banned federal funding of abortion. But the Hyde Amendment applies to government programs only, and trying to fit its stipulations to a private insurance marketplace is a bit like putting a potato skin on an apple. Pro-choice advocates could not understand why a government that currently subsidizes abortion coverage through the tax code should balk at subsidizing private plans that cover abortion in the insurance exchanges the bill establishes. They have a point. Pro-life groups understandably worry that opening the door to federal funding of abortion, even indirectly, risks further encroachments on Hyde. They have a point, too.
This being a political debate, it was bound to get nasty. And nasty it has gotten. The Catholic Health Association and its leadership is taking heat for their courageous stance in favor of the bill; the nearly 60,000 women religious who endorsed the measure yesterday, even as their congregations face scrutiny from Rome on other matters, should be applauded.
NCR: February 3-16, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- US News: Bishops Host Conference on Immigration
Conference fields advocates' questions on law, policy
- Special Section:Deacons.Serving as parish administrator; roles of wives; and more
- Study: Black Catholics are more engaged
New study by Notre Dame researcher about parish involvement in America
While we acknowledge the thoughtful tone of the statement by Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, the president of the U.S. bishops' conference, some of his confreres have taken it upon themselves to impugn CHA's motives, the competence of its leadership, or both.
Part of the difference between the positions taken by the Catholic Health Association as well as by the leaders of the women's religious communities, and that taken by the USCCB has to do with their different roles. CHA actually knows how health care is provided at the ground level. The USCCB's inside-the-beltway analysis is focused on possible scenarios, many of them worst-case scenarios. The U.S. bishops' conference is right to worry about such things and the sisters are right to put those worries in perspective.
In any event, what is being debated is not the morality of abortion but the politics of abortion, and there is plenty of room for honest and respectful disagreement among Catholics about politics.
That said, the bishops have to be clear that some of their talking points might lead honest observers to question their competence -- or worse. In the past week or so, much has been made of the bill's provision of $7 billion dollars to community health centers. The National Right to Life Committee chimed in that this money could go to pay for abortions at clinics run by Planned Parenthood. Back to Logic 101: All Planned Parenthood clinics may be clinics, but not all health care clinics are Planned Parenthood clinics. The community health centers in question do not, never have, and have no intention of performing abortions, and they are prohibited by statute from doing so. This is a red herring and it was profoundly disappointing to see the USCCB Web site give credence to it.
Bottom line: The current legislation is not "pro-abortion," and there is no, repeat no, federal funding of abortion in the bill.
Meanwhile, writing in The Washington Post last Sunday, T.R. Reid, a first-rate journalist, a Catholic, and author of "The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care." argues persuasively that industrialized countries that achieve universal or near-universal insurance coverage have a demonstrably lower abortion rate than we have in the United States. It should matter to those who believe in the sacredness of all human life that this legislation will not only provide health care to those who don't currently possess it, but will encourage women facing crisis pregnancies to choose life. Given the intractable nature of the abortion debate in the United States, this amounts to a pro-life victory of historic proportions.
Support independent Catholic journalism.
|
When Social Security first passed in the 1930s, and Medicare first passed in the 1960s, the bills were insufficient to the problems the laws were designed to address. For example, in order to secure the support of Southern senators, the original Social Security bill exempted sharecroppers from its concern, as the current health care bill exempts immigrants. But, over time, the problems were remedied and both Social Security and Medicare have become essential parts of our nation's social fabric. They embody that solidarity which is the goal of Catholic social teaching.
The current health care bill, for all of its problems and all of its controversies, will further turn our society in the direction of solidarity and away from the Social Darwinism its opponents prefer.
Congress, and its Catholic members who seek to promote the common good, should vote yes.
Related stories
NCR's editorial stance can be
NCR's editorial stance can be summarized as follows: "Abortion is bad, but it's not that bad."
What I believe is needed is
What I believe is needed is the considered nuance analysis of this editorial. I have followed this debate very carefully and for me this is a good summary of a very difficult situation and how a person or group might conscientiously support this measure even though opposed to abortion.
One-liners are far less helpful in my opinion.
All Catholics should support
All Catholics should support this bill. It is PRO-LIFE. It will reduce the number of abortions because it provides excellent health alternatives. It does not allow the use of federal funds for abortions. It provides greater coverage and controls to health care costs. This is a bill that is long-overdue. Unfortunately, it doesn't extend coverage to all immigrants, regardless of status. The latter is a proper objective of USCCB. Unfortunately, there is an anti-immigrant attitude in this country. We need to remind ourselves that Christ can be found in the immigrant searching for a better life.
Our Bishops were given BAD information. Hopefully, with overwhelming support of Catholic Organizations, hispanic caucus and all Catholic social justice organizations, they will see the errors of their position and repent.
Staff to our Respect Life Action Team
This abomination is not
This abomination is not pro-life in any possible way. It will require taxpayers to fund abortions (this fact is only confirmed by the President's agreement to sign an Executive Order prohibiting taxpayer funded abortions -- if that is not in the bill, why would there be a need for an Executive Order?). It will cover additional Americans, yes, but it will also limit the treatment options available. Granted, that is not specifically in the bill, but common sense (a missing quality in this debate) leads to the conclusion that rationing will be an intrinsic part of this bill.
There are only so many ways to reduce cost, and one of those ways is to reduce care. Further, there is substantial evidence to demonstrate that there will be fewer doctors entering the profession (indeed, in many places, there are doctor shortages even now), thus leading to fewer people able to treat substantially more patients. Thus, logic concludes that fewer doctors, increased numbers of patients per doctor, leads to fewer treatment options available.
Further, the bill will establish three separate federal agencies and thousands upon thousands of new federal employees whose job it will be to regulate the health care of millions upon millions of Americans. In other words, federal employees will now be involved in the treatment and care of Americans. It will no longer be a conversation between doctor and patient, but now it will be doctor, patient and federal bureaucrat. No long will patients and doctors be able to decide on appropriate treatment.
Moreover, increased taxation of businesses (to help pay for this bill) will result in increased unemployment, as businesses lay off, and/or fire, employees in an attempt to reduce costs. The new taxes placed on those who already have health care plans, and on businesses that provide those plans, will result in increasing numbers of businesses refusing to provide health care plans.
If one would like to see what this bill looks like in practice, take a look at England. Care and treatment refused to those who are considered "too old" or "too expensive". Patients being forced to wait for months and months just to see a doctor. Quotas for certain tests, like CT Scans and MRI's, resulting in those who need an MRI or CT Scan, and the quota is exceeded, having to wait months until the new quota begins.
I could go on, but it is not necessary. Visit the Heritage Foundation or the Cato Institute, or dozens of other sites that tell the truth about this bill. It is a bill that the VAST majority of Americans oppose, and a bill that Congress has forced through regardless of the wishes of the People. It is not just an issue of life, regarding abortion, but also an issue of the quality of life for all Americans, a quality of life that will suffer dramatically when President Obama signs this bill. One can only hope that, when the Republicans regain control of Congress (and they will, given the enormous anger of the American people at being completely ignored by Congress), this bill will be repealed as the first order of business.
No, Mark, it cannot be. The
No, Mark, it cannot be. The NCR stance is that the Nuns and CHA is right and the Bishops seem to be in cahoots with the National Right to Life Committee (which is not news - nor is the unstated truth that the NRLC is a GOP front). If the Bishops had game, they would force the NRLC to count the Senate Bill with Stupak added as a pro-life must vote, forcing all pro-life Republicans to support it. Since they can't do that, they are playing with a busted flush. Perhaps it is time for the USCCB and the NRLC to part company.
Mark - I suggest you go back
Mark - I suggest you go back and read what is actually on the page.
My reading is that the NCCB is being faithful to its role in finding the
'worst case' while the Nuns are functioning in the real world where there is no government funding for abortions.
Possibly you missed a sentence:
"Bottom line: The current legislation is not "pro-abortion," and there is no, repeat no, federal funding of abortion in the bill."
For all the reasons identified by the NCR - the bill is horribly flawed but it is not about funding abortion - and it is a very needed first step.
Mark is absolutely right--NCR
Mark is absolutely right--NCR and others want to provide health care at the cost of innocent human lives. Plain and simple.
If there are NO pro-abortion aspects to this supposed plan, then WHY aren't the "usual suspects"--NARAL and Planned (so-called) Parenthood--complaining loudly that abortion provisions are NOT there???
No, this junk legislation should be torpedoed--we don't need to "fix" a bad system by making it worse.
They have complained, loudly
They have complained, loudly and long, about both Stupak and the Senate's version of this provision. If you're opposed to HCR, say it and be honest. Don't hide behind the abortion canard.
This bill does not cover
This bill does not cover abortion in any way. If anything does use government funding to increase access to abortion it is the current tax exempt employer provided health insurance program which Republicans support. Whatever plan my employer selects gets a huge tax exemption when compared to the taxes they pay on my salary. My employer selects BCBS Anthem- so I have abortion coverage. Not that I use it, but I have it. So if the Bishops were honest they would be fighting against the current subsidy system- not health care reform.
But this objection is not about abortion at all. It is about being against Democrats and for Republicans. Simple. Anyone who thinks this bill covers abortion either can't read, is stupid or is being intentionally obtuse because they are using abortion as a cover for their real agenda- which is anti-Obama and anti-social justice.
Amen!
Amen!
Why is it that leftists think
Why is it that leftists think they can question with impunity the motives of anyone who does not fall in line with their agenda? Our bishops, who have in the past, do now, and will in the future, support health care for all, are simply right. This bill will open the door to government funding of abortion. Shame on those who support it.
Oh, and Colleen, your support for the bill isn't about social justice and is certainly not about supporting life. As anyone who's not stupid or blind can see, you simply want to use the coercive force of government to push your pro-abortion agenda.
Of course, abortion is bad
Of course, abortion is bad and funding it with tax dollars is plain wrong. But this simply won't happen, so why not drop the non-issue? Our bishops should know better. Unless this story is a total lie, of course. Not.
Of course, abortion is bad
Of course, abortion is bad and funding it with tax dollars is plain wrong.
Well, "of course" both of those statements are your opinion. Many people understand that abortion is simply a medical procedure. It's not "good" or "bad" any more than a tonsillectomy is "good" or "bad." Whether some people don't like it is irrelevant. The use of tax dollars shouldn't be based on whether or not certain religious groups have an opinion on it. Most religions oppose war and the death penalty, yet I see those get rather high federal funding.
That being said, yes, this health care reform (really health insurance reform) needs to be approved. Now.
well said
well said
Your position is about the
Your position is about the same as America Magazine on such issues
about which you are totally misguided. A mailing from them yesterday begged for financial support to which I call them on at least 8 major issues in the past year that they are off-base; trying to justify their point of view.
Maybe you should merge with them and see if you both can't last a little longer for the better things your publication has been doing. But don't hang your hat on your position on health care. No wonder this president has been
able to continue so brazingly!
peter purpura
Not so...what they say is
Not so...what they say is what many informed health care experts have said, THIS BILL DOES NOT FUND ABORTION period. What part of that sentence do you not understand???
Then why on earth would
Then why on earth would Barack Obama offer an executive order to give Stupak what he wants? And BHO knows full well that his executive order means nothing against 30 year precedent for federal funding of abortion. Congress must prohibit it explicitly. Why will you not understand this!?
You people are the partisans. You have no idea. God have mercy on you for your ignorance.
Like you ever needed an
Like you ever needed an abortion. Really, it is not saying abortion is not that bad, it is saying don't throw out the whole bill because the federal government cannot prevent private insurers from paying for abortion. Not that I know of any private insurers that do! Most only cover the basics of health care. The bill does guarantee no federal money will be used for abortion. That is good enough.
It is important to keep in
It is important to keep in mind that the disagreement among Catholic leaders on this legislation is not about the moral wrong of abortion. All agree there. The disagreement is not moral, but legal--a question of civil law: does the proposed law prevent federal funding of abortion? That is a question for lawyers, not moral theologians. As with other legal questions, experienced lawyers may disagree on whether the language of a contract or a statute goes far enough to protect a client's interest and whether it adequately anticipates future possibilities. As a lawyer I've seen some colleagues who are not be satisfied until something has been said five times in different ways; others may hold out for ten times or twenty.
When the Catholic community discusses health care legislation, we must be careful about the claims we make and the speech we use. Our moral position on abortion is clear and unequivocal. We should not confuse our moral position on abortion with the advice we get from our lawyers on whether proposed legislative language prevents federal funds from being used for abortion. Many experienced, conscientious lawyers, including counsel for Catholic hospitals, have concluded the current language accomplishes this goal. Whether they are correct is a question of law. If we disagree with their legal judgment, we should be clear that we are disagreeing on legal grounds and we should offer a legal rationale for our disagreement. We should leave no doubt that on the moral question of abortion we are all on the same side.
And those of us familiar with
And those of us familiar with NCR--most reading this will not be--recognize that this one-liner is not only accurate, but that the "abortion is bad" bit is only a rhetorical concession and that NCR has never truly believed that.
AMEN!!!!
AMEN!!!!
Thank you for this
Thank you for this thoughtful, nuanced analysis. It is very worthy of the reputation of NCR.
I agree with you 100%. Thank
I agree with you 100%. Thank you for your willingness to join with all thinking, caring Catholics (including 50,000 nuns and sisters) in supporting a start on making healthcare available for everyone.
Thanks!
Thanks!
"Bottom line: The current
"Bottom line: The current legislation is not "pro-abortion," and there is no, repeat no, federal funding of abortion in the bill."
Then would someone from NCR please explain to me the fierce opposition to stating exactly that in the Senate bill?
Read the bill--page 2071.
Read the bill--page 2071. "PROHIBITS insurance companies from using federal funds, including federal tax credits and cost-sharing assistance, to pay for abortion services except for those services allowable under the Hyde amendment." Sounds pretty exact in the the Senate bill.
Peace and blessings
Surprise, surprise.
Surprise, surprise.
Thanks be to God that
Thanks be to God that Catholic social teaching is finding its way into some of the fabric of American society.It is a sad commentary when so many Americans in one of the wealthiest countries in the world are losing their insurance coverage and their homes and savings because of greed by corporations who do not care about the poor and disenfranchised or for that matter even the middle class.Many people have gone bankrupt because of health care costs.
Although there are problems with the Bill a vote in favour of the Bill is a pro life vote. That is an improved life for the above-mentioned citizens.
The nastiness, fear mongering and uncaring attitude of the far right is unsettling and disturbing. Surely in an educated society there is middle ground and a place for an honest ,informed debate.Isn't social action what Jesus was all about?
It may have found some small
It may have found some small niche in American society, but I'd be happier still if it found a niche among the American bishops. Would the people they are aligned with feed the hungry or clothe the poor? The bishops coming out against the health care bill are being moral bullies.
The Catholic Church has lost
The Catholic Church has lost its way for more reasons than just this healthcare legislation but ... the bottom line is the country can't afford another entitlement! The country is broke and the spending needs to stop.
Save the country from bankruptcy, close the checkbook and say NO to all spending now!
The CBO has scored the bill
The CBO has scored the bill and it actually REDUCES government spending on healthcare. Yes, reduces the total cost of heath care.
Cost to the federal government: $940 billion over a ten-year period, but will increase revenue and cut other costs by a greater amount, leading to a reduction of $138 billion in the federal deficit over the same period, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.
It will cut the deficit by $1.2 trillion over the second ten year period.
So the two facetious arguments are
1. This bill pays for abortion- Not True!
2. We can't afford this bill- Not True!
Can the people who are against HCR come up with an objection that isn't a lie?
Are you SERIOUS? The
Are you SERIOUS? The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) numbers are speculations. Their findings are under a certain set of conditions—spending cuts, Medicare cuts, new taxes. Under these conditions health care reform would not only pay for itself but would reduce the deficit.
How about real world numbers? What happens when the Medicare cuts and the excise tax disappear and the subsidies are more generous than expected?
Answer...we are in deep debt!
Dear EM, Can you not see that
Dear EM,
Can you not see that this bill is about health care for God's Poor? "Cost" considerations are a smokescreen. Costs are always to individuals...in this case, mostly the comfortable and well-to-do. How can we possibly place their interests before those Jesus became man to save?
JR
Amen, Cynicus. And isn't it
Amen, Cynicus. And isn't it just like God to assign the role of head weaver to a man who is the "wrong" color, a man who bears a "Muslim" middle name--a man who is daily crucified by the Pharisees of our times for these sins as well as the sin of reminding a generally self-centered citizenry of its responsibilities as children of God?
Two points: 1. As one writer
Two points: 1. As one writer pointed earlier this week, if the fungibility of funds were carried to its logical conclusion, a woman seeking an abortion would have to be prevented from taking public transportation to the abortion clinic, using public highways to drive there or even walk on public sidewalks to arrive at her destination.
2. In the mid 1950s when I studied moral theology, a Latin footnote (the text was in English)proclaimed that the ultimate criterion of morality is the individual conscience It's corrolary was that an incividual MUST follow even an ill formed conscience. Related to this point is the fact that VAtican Council II issued a document on religious liberty that insisted that in a pluralistic society, the consciences of all must be respected.
I'll go one better, since
I'll go one better, since most abortions are paid for in cash, the ban should include not going to McDonalds, because it is almost certain that part of your purchase will fund the salary of some pimply faced kid who is saving up for his girlfriend's abortion.
It's a real shame that some
It's a real shame that some Catholics seems incapable of taking the senseless destruction of human life on a massive scale seriously.
Yes, many take it so
Yes, many take it so unseriously that they cannot answer a simple question and instead hide behind moral indignation.
Do we respect the conscience
Do we respect the conscience of a mass murderer, or a racist, or a homophobe, or a greedy capitalist, or a child molester?
Actually we do respect the
Actually we do respect the consciences of all those criminals you mentioned. The difference between those who kill others (mass murderers etc.) and someone having or providing an abortion is that the former are forbidden by law to behave as they do, the latter are not forbidden by law. I agree with Tom A that the greedy should be constrained by law, but they are not. If they were so constrained by law, found guilty and punished, we must still respect their consciences.
Funny thing, primacy of
Funny thing, primacy of conscience. We haven't heard much about it from the Vatican since--the demise of Paul VI?
The proposed health care
The proposed health care reform bill is a disaster for seniors on Medicare. Over $400B will be taken from the Medicare program. It is reasonable to predict that providers will limit or stop taking Medicare patients. Thus, the elderly are being "thrown under the bus" to finance the coverage for others.
No, Medicare Advantage
No, Medicare Advantage providers are being thrown under the bus for overcharging the taxpayer. Services to the elderly will still be provided. Would that we did more of that.
..and the donut hole in
..and the donut hole in prescription coverage will be closed. The "cut" in Medicare is just a cut in corporate welfare to insurance companies, not a cut in services to seniors.
"services" will be provided,
"services" will be provided, but not the same services as are now provided. The fact is that the current level of spending provides services that will no longer be provided after this bill becomes law. It's a lie to suggest otherwise.
Not so and I am on Medicare.
Not so and I am on Medicare. What will happen is that the billions of subsidies that the government now pays to private insurers so they can offer Medicare Advantage programs, which are in competition with the original Medicare which I find perfectly fine for my elderly health care needs, will be DISCONTINUED. Those patients will go back on traditional Medicare and their doctors will probably choose to continue treating them under traditional Medicare, rather than lose them altogether.
nonsense!! the elderly have
nonsense!! the elderly have far better care than many, many in this country! They will not lose services at all!! The elderly have huge lobby group and will be just fine. Stop using being elderly as an excuse not to share.
Not so - AARP supports health
Not so - AARP supports health care reform. Go to aarp.org and read it for yourself. Stop trying to scare seniors!
Actually, the AARP was
Actually, the AARP was assured that THEIR medicare insurance corporation would be on the ground floor. You do realize that AARP is mostly interested in making big cash money off of the elderly?
Of course they are in favor of this - they will make millions - billions of dollars from this Ponzi scheme disguised as health 'insurance' reform.
Thank you, NCR! "Part of the
Thank you, NCR!
"Part of the difference between the positions taken by the Catholic Health Association as well as by the leaders of the women's religious communities, and that taken by the USCCB has to do with their different roles. CHA actually knows how health care is provided at the ground level. The USCCB's inside-the-beltway analysis is focused on possible scenarios, many of them worst-case scenarios. The U.S. bishops' conference is right to worry about such things and the sisters are right to put those worries in perspective."
I find this opinion to be
I find this opinion to be thoughtful, carefully and logically presented. Thank you for showing both sides.
As a religious woman, I am so proud that we, the sisters, have stood up and are being counted. I only wish that the USCCB or at least some active bishops would take a stand. What a statement that would make that not everyone in the chuch follow 'lock step'. It would also show that we can disagree about "interpretation and not substance" as was stated today in a LA article about this very same topic.
NCR backs the Democrats? Not
NCR backs the Democrats? Not a surprise. Yawn.
Yes, it's an absolute
Yes, it's an absolute disgrace. NCR doesn't understand that the Catholic Church is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican Party. Shame on you, NCR!
Thank you for an excellent
Thank you for an excellent article.
I strongly disagree with both
I strongly disagree with both the conclusion your of editorial, and its analysis of the abortion funding in the Senate Health care bill. It is undisputed that under the Senate bill people can use a tax payer provided subsidy to purchase an health insurance plan that covers elective abortion. Any accounting gimicks notwithstanding, that constitutes federal funding of aboriton.
I urge you to support the efforts of the Bishops in fighting for a true pro-life health care bill, rather than underminding them. Please retract your editorial.
My you are a trusting lot,
My you are a trusting lot, aren't you? If the Obama Health Care Bill was not a sneaky way to get us all to pay for abortions, then the language would be plain and direct. It isn't strait forward and you are playing games with us if you expect us to believe that you are 100% against government funding for abortion. Why not demand direct language. You are very smart people, however, your secret desire to promote a "Woman's Right To Choose" is obvious. Please pray more on this subject. Ask God to strip away your own thoughts on the matter.
Dear John P.,
Dear John P.,
I would strongly suggest you actually read the relevant sections and sub-sections of the legislation. There is NO funding of abortion, and there are NO “accounting gimmicks”. It maintains the legal status quo. You are beating a debunked and long-dead horse.
.
By your odd logic(???), Catholic Charities and Catholic Hospitals would also be engaging in accounting gimmicks when they accept tax dollars and promise to keep that money separate (via accounting) from funds related to Catholic Church activities, lobbying, proselytizing and paying clergy abuse settlements — or perhaps you have no problem with any supposed gimmicks as long as they are done by the Catholic Church.
.
Fungibility of currency, which by legal definition is always fungible in general circulation, is very different than its definition in terms of accounting, and the separation of monetary pools of money in business and government. If a woman chooses an insurance policy that also covers abortion, she must write a separate check with her own money to cover that additional premium.
.
It appears that you want to quibble over the fungibility of the woman’s own earned currency because she has received a government subsidy for some other service. You really don’t want to travel down that slippery slope since you too are “subsidized” every day of your life with taxpayer funded community services such as police, fire department, sanitation, clean water, safe food, public roads, etc. — things you would be unable to provide for yourself otherwise. By your logic(???), your own personal earned income would no longer be your own to spend as you choose.
.
When you dogmatically choose to over-ride someone else’s legal moral freedoms on the grounds of subsidies, you place your own legal moral freedoms in jeopardy as well. Better to fight the abortion wars on some other turf.
The opposite of love is
The opposite of love is indifference.
Jesus told his disciples that if they did not reach out to folks needing help, they in effect were turning their backs on Jesus himself.
Whenever I see the Republican leaders of the House and Senate doing their level best to kill this much needed healthcare legislation, I'm reminded of the gospel passage where the rich man in Hell asks God for just a "drop of water". God, however, reminds the man that he ignored a needy human being and, thus, has earned his just punishment.
If there is a Hell to which God consigns the real sinners of this world, it will not be populated by prostitutes, murderers, terrorists, et al. No, it'll be filled to the brim with the "rich and proper folk" who turned their backs and a blind eye toward the poor children of God among them.
"Just give me a chance, Lord, to come back to life for a day to tell my rich brothers and sisters to heed your command to help the needy."
"My friend," replies God, "if your family is ignoring my wishes, they sure as hell won't be paying attention to a scumbag like you."
I hope somebody relays this reminder to Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and John Boehner (R-OH).
Beautifully said. Thank you.
Beautifully said. Thank you.
Amen, my dear brother Joseph,
Amen, my dear brother Joseph, amen.
I like the message, but I
I like the message, but I dont recall any gospel passage about refusing a "drop of water" for a man in hell and not by our Gracious God . . . did I miss it?
My parable is a modern
My parable is a modern application of Jesus' lesson in Lk 16:19-31.
Read the teachings of Christ
Read the teachings of Christ found in the book of Luke. There you will find the story of Lazarus and Abraham. I'd include the text here, but I think a little effort on your behalf would be more appropriate.
Yes, the story or Lazarus and
Yes, the story or Lazarus and Dives in Luke.
Have any of you read this
Have any of you read this bill? Abortion issues aside, this is not about Health Care reform - We all are focused on helping the needy but who will have any money left to help them after this is implemented? Oh I forgot - our government will provide!! are you kidding????? Who funds the government. We do. But - we won't have any money left! We all need to step back and think about what the real results are going to be - this bill is a mistake.
There are better roads to real healthcare reform - unfortunately, our representatives have wasted alot of time and spent alot of our money studying the issue and they've us failed again.
"We all are focused on
"We all are focused on helping the needy . . ."
No, we are not *all* focused on helping the needy. If that was the case we would have had universal health care years ago as virtually all other civilized countries have.
"But - we won't have any money left!"
That pretty much says it all. Don't take my money and use it for anyone else.
Yes, by all means, let's scrap the plan, put the Republicans back in power and let them deal with it. Oh wait---they won't. They couldn't care less. But that's fine, as long as it doesn't nick me in the pocket, who cares?
There are so many aspects of
There are so many aspects of "extending a helping hand to the needy"---I have wrestled with this for years. It is my Christ duty to be a Good Samaritan and I do, to the limit of my personal budget.
Often, however, I note that the "needy" are those who lack personal responsibility to help themselves, and want me to enable them in their dependence. I have to be selective, then, in who I help.
With regard to illegals, I do take issue with using the term "immigrant" because they really are not "Immigrants" in the sense of being part of a regulated government system of who enters our country. Even though I understand that for the most part, illegals are here to better their lives, the budget of our country cannot handle unregulated masses of persons who use the country's systems of education, medical facilities, prison facilities, etc. without a corresponding contribution to the system.
To cast aspersions on people who make the case for the budget is unfair.It is not racist, nor is it necessarily a failure to respond to Jesus' words to feed the hungry, etc.
NCR has dropped the ball on
NCR has dropped the ball on this one. There is no sort of "profound progress" when abortion, either directly or indirectly, is funded by the government. As noted, there are several grave issues with the bill, and none of them are so unimportant as to support the bill anyway.
"The spirit" of the Hyde Amendment is akin to "the spirit" of Vatican II: there is no such thing. We either follow the Hyde Amendment or we don't; we either follow Vatican II or we don't.
Contrary to what is said in the editorial, there is nothing "courageous" about supporting a bill that supports abortion; about supporting a bill that can do harm to undocumented people; about supporting a bill that penalizes individuals who choose to refrain from buying insurance out of a sense of their own free will. Where is the honor in supporting legislation with these kinds of evils?
The reason why our health care system is so compromised is because we so easily compromise. We so easily sacrifice a few things for the many. We so easily disregard human life, in all it's aspects, and THIS is the problem with this bill.
How many times does it have
How many times does it have to be said: THIS BILL DOES NOT FUND ABORTION period. What part of this sentence do you not understand?
Except that it does, even
Except that it does, even under the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment allows for abortions in cases of rape or incest.
Post new comment