The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionHealth care debate poisoned
Aug. 14, 2009
NCR Editorial
William Kostric showed up at President Obama’s health care-focused town hall meeting in Portsmouth, N.H., Aug. 11 carrying a loaded gun and a sign that read, “It is time to water the tree of liberty.” Kostric, speaking later on MSNBC, rooted his concern for the Republic in the creation of the Federal Reserve and the 16th Amendment establishing the federal income tax.
Kostric’s political views are rather eccentric. But he’s not alone in offering bizarre critiques of the health care reform efforts before Congress; in fact, he’s joined by people who should know better but have chosen to feed hysteria with deliberate distortions and outrageous lies.
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin contributed her bit of mendacity by warning about the “death panels” the health care reforms purportedly will establish, in which government bureaucrats will decide who is too expensive to keep alive. As one child’s poster in New Hampshire read, “Obama Lies, Grandma Dies.” None of the health care proposals before Congress, of course, propose any such thing. There is a proposal for Medicare to reimburse consultations, initiated by the patient, in which they can discuss end-of-life plans with their doctors. To characterize this proposal as a “death panel” is a simple lie.
A more complex distortion has been floated in Catholic circles. After the president clearly stated last month that he did not want the politics of abortion to enter into the health care debate, Deal Hudson, a Catholic blogger and one-time Republican Party political operative, delivered a tendentious reading of the president’s remarks that turned them on their head. “President Obama clearly wants abortion services as part of the health care package, but he is not being honest with the American people,” Hudson wrote. Hudson has been repeating this canard in subsequent columns.
Hudson has also leveled his aim at fellow Catholics, accusing the Catholic Health Association, the St. Vincent de Paul Society and Catholic Charities of ignoring the abortion issue in their advocacy for health care reform. “Three of the top lay Catholic organizations have divorced themselves from Catholic teaching by supporting the Obama health care plan, which would foster a culture of mandatory abortion coverage, contraceptive services, and permissive sex education, euthanasia and eugenics,” wrote Hudson. There are several falsehoods packed into that one statement.
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
For starters, and this is always a clue that the talking point in question comes from Republican operatives, not from magisterial teaching, there is no such thing as an “Obama health care plan.” The most obvious difference between the reform effort this year and the 1993 debacle is that the administration did not draft an “Obama plan” but left the legislative drafting to congressional committees. It is also untrue that there is an abortion “mandate” in any of the proposals. Where he gets “eugenics” remains a mystery, though it is the nature of the controversialist beast to want an exclamation point and eugenics certainly fits that bill.
The attack on Catholic organizations that have had to deal with the unjust consequences of the current health care system is as ugly as it is false. But nowhere has the attack been uglier than at the Catholic Key Blog, where the editor of the Kansas City-St. Joseph, Mo., diocesan newspaper, Jack Smith, launched an attack on Daughter of Charity Sr. Carol Keehan, who heads the Catholic Health Association. It would have been bad enough to suggest that a sister who has dedicated her life to serving the poor and carrying on the healing ministry of Jesus was so blind-sided by her passion for health care reform that she had grown inalert to the moral urgency of keeping the reform neutral on abortion. That would be false, alas, but Smith did not even make that argument. He suggested that Keehan is a money-grubbing nun, dutifully carrying out the wishes of her corporate sponsors who stand to gain financially from the reform effort. He provided not a shred of evidence for this base charge. Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and others have called for Smith to apologize, but there has been nothing but silence on that score from the otherwise loquacious Smith.
By contrast, the U.S. Catholic bishops, in letters from Bishop William Murphy, head of the Domestic Policy Committee, and from Cardinal Justin Rigali, head of the Pro-Life Committee, have struck precisely the right note. Catholics take a second place to no one in our advocacy of universal health insurance. Our bishops have lobbied for universal health care for decades and they proudly stand at the forefront of the current effort. The bishops also, and without histrionics, have insisted that health care reform not be a vehicle to wiggle past the Hyde Amendment, which restricts funding for abortion. The bishops have been crystal clear: We Catholics want universal health insurance but federal funding for abortion is a deal-breaker.
The difficulty is surmountable. The basic plans, private or public, should not include abortion services. These basic plans should be subsidized by the federal government for those who cannot otherwise afford them. If a person wants insurance coverage for abortion services, they would be able to purchase, with their own money, a rider to the policy. This is a straightforward way to keep health care reform neutral on the issue of abortion, a goal that has been endorsed by both the president and by the bishops.
What cannot happen is for the distorters and kooks to keep the nation from achieving a goal so long sought by the Catholic church. This year, we must not walk by the injured man on the road to Jericho. This year, the nation must put into practice the example of the Good Samaritan and provide universal health care to all God’s children.
Follow the money! It's in the
Follow the money! It's in the interest of BIG business -especially private insurance companies- to keep the "distorters and the kooks" wound up and turning up at all the summer recess town hall meetings to "shout down" members of Congress in their home districts before they return to Washington in September.
Abortion must not remain the all-or-nothing, deal breaking criterion for Catholic support of health care reform. American Bishops and all so-called "PRO-LIFERS" need to re-think post conception, post gestation, post nativity and consider the kind of world a non-aborted fetus will be born into WITHOUT this much needed health care reform. ONE example springs to mind: last week's FREE medical treatment clinic in downtown Los Angeles, where literally thousands of people lined up for hours to try and see a doctor, nurse or dentist. THIS is our future in America if current trends continue. And it is a scandal of the highest degree if the Catholic Church allows this legislation to be defeated.
Does everyone in good
Does everyone in good conscience want health care reform? Yes, we do. We want good coverage for everyone, we want tort reform, we want a system where doctors don't over "test" patients, we want good medical coverage but at a lower cost.
But, many are blinded by the rhetoric - this administration and the Democratic lead Congress want to remove the Hyde protections and allow public funded abortions. If you believe that's OK, well, that's your opinion. The Catholic Church does not think that's OK.
Amen! to that, Craig.
Amen! to that, Craig.
It almost appears that the frenetic anti-abortion crowd in the USCCB and elsewhere, are attempting to hide their ACTUAL far right political agenda of deregulated capitalism (and 'aborting' health care reform) behind the veneer of "pro-life". It's the only way this deal-breaker talk makes sense within the broad context of social justice in Catholic teaching. It's beginning to sound a bit disingenuous, especially after certain more vocal bishops have openly identified themselves as supporters of the Republican Party, the party which coincidentally has people like Jim DeMint saying that they must defeat reform in order to take down President Obama.
No one is attempting to circumvent the Hyde Amendment, which covers the federal funding issues. Any potential attempts at the federal level to address funding in a federal health bill beyond Hyde, would likely get into the realm of violating states rights... and so end up sabotaging reform with a constitutional challenge before it even gets out of the gate.
Mr. McKee: The analysis in
Mr. McKee: The analysis in your first paragraph is based on a complete misunderstanding of the current dynamics of “health care reform” and the role that “big business” is playing in the debate. All the major industry players have made their pilgrimages to Washington D.C. and have cut their deals with the Democrats. Pharmaceutical companies, hospital groups, the AMA, and labor unions are all backing the president’s “health care reform” initiative and they will all benefit from the increased government control of health care.
This is not surprising. It has long been acknowledged that there always has been and always will be groups that will try to influence government policies so that the coercive powers of the State will be tailored to their advantage. Business groups are amongst the most active in this regard. The classical economist, Adam Smith had very little good to say about “businessmen”. When analyzing Smith’s book “The Wealth of Nations”, Irving Kristol wrote that, “One class of people for whom almost no enthusiasm of any kind, and almost no respect, is expressed is the businessman. He is presented as a scheming, conniving, self-seeking, soulless person, always looking for ways to … achieve a one-sided advantage by rigging the market.” James Madison in Federalist #10 wrote that many groups, such as businesses, “consumer” associations and unions, will form what he called “factions” or in today’s parlance, special interests. Madison described factions as “a number of citizens …who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens.” He warned that centralizing economic control will allow factions to use the governmental powers to “trample on the rules of justice” so as to redistribute wealth to themselves. Any college undergraduate that majors in economics can tell you that coercive government authority involving barriers to market entry, price fixing and public sector managed cartels will lead to disproportionate benefits for some groups at the expense the general populace.
No, Mr. McKee, I am afraid that you are wrong. The current data that is available suggests that most town hall participants opposed to the current “health care reform” bills are ordinary people that have organized themselves at the grassroots level. Most carry home made signs, speak in a straight forward manner and have never read from a teleprompter. They are up against powerful business interests, highly organized union machines, well paid political operatives and the massive powers of the federal government. They will probably loose the fight, but they will go down swinging. It kind of reminds me of the Alamo.
Footnote: There are a few reports that some insurance company executives are confused by the President’s current stump speech where he attacks their industry because they, too, had previously made the pilgrimage to Washington D.C. to cut their deal. Unfortunately for them, the President needs a bogeyman to harangue and at the moment they are a convenient target.
Mr. Joseph, I'm afraid that
Mr. Joseph,
I'm afraid that quoting from a book review doesn't necessarily constitute evidence - but evidence isn't a real big item in the anti-reform camp.
I'll grant you that the pharmaceutical industry has probably moved in to cut their deal, but somebody is funding the coordinated attack. There folks aren't all speaking from the exact same script by divine inspiration - especially since they are all repeating the same manufactured lies. The insurance industry may have made a pilgimage, but I doubt their prayers were answered and it has been shown that they are behind several of the groups with attack TV ads. Another source is the vask sink of people who just hate the president. right now, a good number on the right would oppose him if he had a cure for cancer. Not sure which camp you fall into - the paid or the haters, I look forward to hearing you invoke the constitution - that should come next.
Dennison: Thanks for
Dennison: Thanks for responding to my posting, however:
1) A portion of your comments take the form of an ad hominen attack. For example, your statement, “Not sure which camp you fall into - the paid or the haters”, is a capricious assertion and cannot be categorized as as a valid argument. I fall into neither of these camps.
2) My reasoning for quoting the “Federalist Papers” is to suggest that a key foundation of the American system of government is grounded on the dispersal of power. I cite the “Wealth of Nations” to show that the Amercian economic system is based on the same concept. Mr. Madison and Mr. Smith were warning us that excessive accumulation of power in a central authority will lead to a corruption of interests because factions (ie: special interests) will be empowered to garner special treatment at the expense of the general populace. Whether or not this constitutes “evidence” I guess depends on your definition of “evidence”. But it at least shows that there is a long standing philosophical tradition in this country of being very wary of economic central planning. No where in your comments do you address this, which I believe is, a very valid concern.
3) The facetious statement that, “There folks aren't all speaking from the exact same script by divine inspiration” I am afraid is a bit nonsensical. If there is a long standing tradition in this country that is opposed to an excessive accumulation of power in a central authority and if our federal system of government is based on this concept, then no “divine inspiration” is required to equip the average citizen to voice her or her concerns regarding government encroachment into their daily lives. The typical high school civics class will do this for them.
4) You mention attack ads. The number of ads presently being run that are in favor of the current “health care reform” intitative outweigh the ads voicing concerns by a factor of about 10 to 1. I speculate that Mr. Madison would not have been surprised.
5) I disagree with your term “anti-reform”. There is a general national consensus that reform is needed. The debate is about the nature of reform. There are many market based solutions that will provide a less costly and arguably a much better solution.
6) You say, “evidence isn't a real big item in the anti-reform camp.” I am not in the “anti-reform camp”, but I direct you to read my August 16 posting below where I list several specific concerns about the many bills that are currently before congress.
7) Finally you write, “I look forward to hearing you invoke the constitution - that should come next…”. I am not sure what to make of this statement. Generally speaking, perhaps more people should read the constitution. This includes Republicans and Democrats. It’s not a bad document.
Amen, I think some of us
Amen, I think some of us catholic are really blinded by the whole meaning of being pro-life. I am absolutely against abortion and also against anything that would diminished the rights and dignity of every person. I think that as Catholics and Christians are concern should be human rights, human dignity, and should support what is going to promote this values. I think it is ironic that some catholic are so obsessed with abortion but are supporting a system that promotes war, hunger, violence, injustice, and all those other things that also kill people.
I have been wondering about
I have been wondering about the silence from the Catholic church on health care reform. No preaching from the pulpit to encourage their members to support it but using the specter of abortion as a means to stop it. When will the Church wake up that they are being used by right wing zealots to keep reform in a variety of areas from happening? Where are the social justice advocates within the Church? I know there are some groups out there who do support it but even our local hospital run by the Sisters of Mercy had staff at a forum before the local Chamber of Commerce who were voicing opposition to it.
Why is it always men who scream the loudest about abortion? Is it really about control of women? When women became empowered to control the number of children they have did men see this as loss of control (no longer can they keep women barefoot and pregnant at home!)?
It's not just the Catholic
It's not just the Catholic Church: see: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977775554
Lee C. Aug 18, 2009, 11:47pm EDT
"But the real consequences of failed absolutism, evident in the ecologic, economic and religious collapses now occurring, will contniue to challenge past presumptions and demand different approaches."
Absolute truth does not fail. I'm not sure we are seeing a religious collapse. In fact trials and tribulation tend to make people search for God and understanding of his ways. We are seeing a economic collapse becasue we have rejected truth. When people reject truth, evil power reigns. Our nation has "killed" God, we are killing ethics, and the last road sign to the path of national destruction is when we begin to kill man. And this is exactly what abortion is...a sign of national decay. And the national healthcare being discussed promotes euthanasia. When the government forces people into a national healthcare system, I call that evil power not evolution. Tightened government control over people is not a new concept. It has been tried and leads to tryanny because people reject God's truth.
Sylvester Steffen Aug 19, 2009, 3:36am EDT
In fact, I quite agree with you, Lee. You bring up “abortion”, as if it is the single life-issue. The great abortion to which we are massively blind is the wipe-out of weblife and the destruction of global ecologies by conscienceless consumerism. How does that not belong in the moral perspective, with respect to "right to life"?
Human populations (corporate consumerism) have no respect for natural life. We are locked in a “religious” culture that thinks and acts as if God wants us to deplete nature to its death. That is total mindlessness. God will not rescue us from the folly of our “stupidity” and willful blindness.
You say “Tightened government control over people is not a new concept. It has been tried and leads to tryanny because people reject God's truth.” For “government control” one might substitute “religious absolutism”, and the statement is equally true.
Care for one another, for ecology, is not only a moral mandate, but it implicates a political mandate. The present healthcare system (mixing politics with religion) is bankrupt because there is too much corporate self-interest and profiteering at the expense of nature and everyone. The divine/ human aspect of healthcare is all but ignored.
Actually you and I think alike in many ways. Our major difference it seems to me is that you are focused in the past, even “locked” in the past. I respect that we must advance in continuity with an informed awareness of the past, but I think it is more purposeful, more “religious”, more consistent with "truth", with divine purposes, to focus more on the future.
God's truth includes natural truth, and the intentional pusuit of both.
An understanding of
An understanding of "reciprocity", the correlation (mutuality) of “the natural” and “the spiritual” can enlighten us to live more faithfully to nature and more lovingly toward one another. This understanding is what John Courtney Murray clarified for church and humankind in his insightful statement: “faith supposes reason as grace supposes nature.” Moral/ political authenticity (sustainability) derives from personal/ social authenticity (harmony). The medium of faith is reason; the medium of grace is nature; the medium of political authenticity is the moral person.
If we fail to grasp natural reciprocity (cause and effect in relationships), we will fail to live true to ourselves and others, and we frustrate faith and reason, grace and nature, religion and civility. This frustration is precisely what bedevils church and global civilization—religion and politics. Ethics, the medium of political authenticity (sustainability), is personal moral living, informed and motivated in personal conscience.
The principle of reciprocity has other deep and important correlations that enlighten present day frustrations; for example: symbiosis supposes evolution as spirituality supposes secularity. The dynamic of reason is the purposeful medium of evolution even as faith is the intentional medium of symbiotic fidelity (political harmony).
Because the “primacy of conscience” is thwarted by dominion theology/ politics, so is intentional symbiosis and personal conscience. Symbiosis supposes personal conscience as politics suppose conscionable community, that is, as communal morality supposes personal morality.
The critical challenge of our time is personal/ social fidelity to an informed sense of the correlative dynamics of reciprocity, which alone gives ascendancy to virtue over vice, to the sustainability of the order of nature and human wellbeing over exploitive consumerism. This requires a quantum leap beyond fixations in the culture of fideism (imprisonment in past absolutisms) to the openness of conscionable relationships in an evolving universe.
Great editorial!!! Seems
Great editorial!!! Seems like there's a lot of just plain "dumbness" going around these days. It's difficult to even watch the news without wanting to shake the tv and tell the folks to read and listen to facts not fiction..... Fr.Bob Wenz
At last, the voice of
At last, the voice of reason!! The last paragraph is spot on!
I heard Sr. Keehan
I heard Sr. Keehan interviewed by Raymond Arroyo on EWTN and, although Mr. Arroyo tried hard to put Sr. Keehan in a position she did not agree with, she replied forcefully and convincingly.
It seems that her detractors are really radical republican wolves in Catholic sheepskins.
This seems to be a good
This seems to be a good run-down of the current situation concerning the Health Care debate. Every good wish to the Bishops and those who are brave enough to see it through. And don't worry about the canards, the kooks, the distorters and plain liars. There will always be those on the other side of the coin. Always have been, always will be. See Jn.15:18-27.
I am shocked at how people
I am shocked at how people are so out of control at town hall meetings with our legislators. We all need to read more articles like this, educate ourselves with the truth and discuss these issues with family and friends. The government gave us the Social Program that has made peoples lives better for decades. What makes us so sure they can't comes up with a well-planned program for health care coverage?
I understand that an "NCR
I understand that an "NCR Editorial" is written as the opinion of the editorial board of the publication and that the writer is anonymous. However, I am afraid that too many people will be confused. I admit that I read the "anonymous" first and after reading the posting thought, "I wish this were not "by anonymous.'" After going back to the top I found "NCR Editorial" and was much relieved. I am afraid that many people will see the anonymous as I did and not go back to realize it is the opinion of the publication. Could not the "anonymous" be changed to "editorial board" or something similar.
Great story. Thank you.
At66 I am naturally concerned
At66 I am naturally concerned about senior health care, as are so many of my friends. We have been concerned about rising costs, for one thing. For decades we have also heard rumbles about rationing, about assisted suicide and euthanasia, and have been told for decades that these evils may be coming. We naturally were slightly on the alert for that sort of thing, and pricked up our ears a little when we heard critics of the present bill (Obamacare, or whatever you want to call it) claim the bill could be used to bump off the old who's medical expenses are higher than some government agency likes. Then we read about Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel, who proposed such a thing, and who, according to reports, has got Mr. Obama's ear. Slightly perturbed, we tried to read the bill, but found it very confusing, and impossibly long. We wondered why an enlightened administration could not produce something an ordinary Joe bloe like me could understand.
We felt sure however, that the president and/or his spokespeople would soon dispell our fears. And sure enough they issued assurances that there would be no rationing and no euthanasia. But they didn't say how they would pay for all this universal coverage. Basically they said "trust us, we can do it". And they demonized those who raised those issues, calling them un-american and other unflattering epithets. We were hurt by that, because we were among those doing the asking and we are patriotic Americans. Then from the way the president frequently contradicted himself, we began to fear the president does not understand the bill himself. The more he struggled to promote it, the less people liked it.
We began to suspect that the reason why the bill is so complicated is that they don't want us to understand it, so they can foist something like euthansaia on us whithout our knowing it.
Then I read how President Obama had explicitly promised to Planned Parenthood in 2007 that abortion would be "at the heart, at the center" of any health care plan he would introduce. Now he is saying something vague but very different on the issue (another self-contradiction). And PP are not calling him on it! How strange, we thought! Further, PP are now claiming the bill does not mandate abortion coverage! But, strangely again, motions to make the bill abortion neutral were voted down. Why, we thought?
Sorry, too hard for a Joe bloe to believe. There had to be "something going on here". Further investigation convinced me that PP are using the bill as a vehicle to radically expand "abortion rights" and that duplicity is "at the heart, at the center" of their plan.
That's when I decided thumbs down for this bill (or bills or whatever it is). Go back to the drawing board. Start over. Let us understand what government is doing. Adopt a bill that EXPLICITLY rules out abortion and rationing and euthanasia. The government must abandon Alinskyite manipulation and deception and level with the people. Then we may hope for decent health legislation.
P.S. As I write this I see on my TV that the government is now starting an attack on the insurance companies and vilifying them with full force. A bad sign! Alinskyite tactics are not the way to deal with concerned American citizens.
Comments on health care re
Comments on health care re NCR article
To keep this short, I will just make some comments on health care.
If anyone is able to do that, I certainly can, having been involved in the 70's with the start up of a consumer based HMO (NorthCare) with a salaried physician group with peer review, which is the clinic model recommended by Mayo, Cleveland , Kaiser-Permanente, Billings etc.
I am certainly for change, the system is far beyond that need, and recognized that in the 70's, but "change" of itself can be good or bad. What little we know of what lurks in Congress, murky as it is, is a politically induced proposal and not real positive change and would make things worse.
My summary:
* The Great Community Organizer from Chicago blew it.
* What started as a program regarding health care quickly devolved into the topic of health insurance and availability and then politics.
* Redoing health care was too difficult to frame and accomplish because of all the parties involved, especially heavy Dem donors, and a total re do of the health care industry to really achieve cost saves and improved care was too difficult and would take too long to achieve -- besides offending Dem money sources.
* No tort reform: lawyers are big contributors -- 25% save right there
* No tax on employer based health insurance -- at least $250 billion there -- which disenfranchises small businesses and self employed and a thorn for unions.
* Nothing about individual state limited insurance vs nationwide. The "evil" insurance industry would face a lot more competition.
* Public option: his reference to the post office could not be more to the point.
* To fend off any blame Obama threw it to Congress where it festered and puked up thousand page "bills" in its dank dark chambers, that like many of you, Congressmen did not read.
* The lack of transparency and information led to all kinds of public rumors and misgivings (duh?), which led to the frantic "attacks" upon evil insurance companies and drug companies, and was an attempt to use the Alinsky principle of "rub raw the sores of discontent".
* Not even the teleprompters, especially the CBO and Axlerod, Plouuf and Favreau can help him extricate himself.
regards,
vito
Vito - I see both you can the
Vito - I see both you can the old fogey coincidentally used Saul Alinsky as a verb. No I believe in the laws of chance as much as the next guy who understands a little math - but I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask which website the two of you are gettin you talking points from.
Did you really watch the
Did you really watch the MSNBC interview? Mr. Kostric's protest was not rooted in the 16th amendment. His actions were rooted in his legal right to bear arms as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. He's concerned constitutional rights are being eroded by the current administration and the sitting Congress. I applaud Mr. Kostric for his actions.
The truth is that we are becoming more and more a nanny state. Why is it that we can't learn to take care of ourselves? Why can we not learn to take care of the less fortunate and NOT allow the government to be involved in such care. Having a government sponsored health care plan is not the answer, as is any other bureaucratic program. We are taxing ourselves to death... and no, I am by no means rich. Oh, and yes, we even work for the Church! My family and I live from paycheck to paycheck, and yet when tax time comes around we end up owing even more taxes! Programs like what Mr. Obama and the Congress are suggesting will do nothing but create more national debt that we, the taxpayer, will have to pay. While the Church should advocate the *right* to affordable health care, it should also be part of the solution of finding an affordable way to pay for it. What we have heard so far - from both the government and Church officials - does not provide us with such a solution.
Oh, and by the way, I'm not some Republican operative. I'm a citizen of the United States who is trying to exercise my right to free speech.
One of the biggest drivers
One of the biggest drivers behind the Nanny state has been insurance companies. It's their actuarial statistics that have mandated legal compulsion for all kinds of things we were not trusted to do ourselves.
I pay as much in insurance premiums as I do taxes. Why isn't the right screaming about reducing insurance premium loads? At least I get something out of my tax money. If I'm a good responsible citizen and pretty lucky, I may never get a thing out of all my insurance premiums.
Milwaukee-born, I watch in
Milwaukee-born, I watch in sadness from Canada.
I saw on TV today that fewer
I saw on TV today that fewer people now support the healthcare planning than are for it. I would say it is because people are believing the lies being put out left to right and everywhere else. Lies! If you want to debate honestly fine but to deliberately distort things in order to cancel out what the majority of the people wanted in this election is terrible. It's unethical and let me say unchristian. Why unchristian? Well, lies are just for starters but more so is the idea that we don't need to take care of our neighbor when they can't take care of themselves, that we shouldn't pay a bit more in taxes when we have the extra cloak but don't want to give it up for the one who does not have it and can't get it. Jesus said to take care of each other but when we say that millions can die of illnesses that could be taken care of because we don't want to pay a little more out of our surplus is unchristian. To hear the lies coming from Catholics is truly disheartening.
Catholic teaching is about
Catholic teaching is about charity and social justice. Jesus' message was to care for the marginalized people: the outcasts, the poor, the physically and mentally challenged.
Presently, on Cable TV we have demogogues spewing out lies.
At town hall meetings we are witnessing a lynch mob carrying guns, making racial slurs and other hateful comments. Faith and reason shall prevail, I hope. It is high time and probably the last chance to fix the mess.
"This year, the nation must put into practice the example of the Good Samaritan and provide universal care to all God's children." (Anonymous, NCR, 8-14-09) God bless you.
The election of a black man
The election of a black man as President of the United States has left legions on political right completely unhinged. They are armed, they are crazy, and they are dangerous.
This is one of the most
This is one of the most absurd and insulting comments I have ever read on this website. The people who are making this entire issue one of race are not the conservatives, but rather the liberals. The actions of a few unhinged individuals who happen to paint themselves with the conservative stripe is not, and cannot be construed to be, the beliefs and opinions of the majority of conservatives in this nation.
The reality is that conservatives oppose Mr. Obama, not because he is black, his race has nothing to do with it, but rather because he is liberal and he is intent upon taking this country down a left-wing road that will take us decades to correct. I could not care less what race he is, I do care that he is advocating at the top of his lungs that which I would oppose at the top of mine. I oppose socialist health care, I oppose taxpayers subsidizing healthcare for illegal immigrants (have no problem with LEGAL immigrants, but there is the distinction!), I oppose taxpayer funded abortion, I oppose stealing from one group of Americans and giving those stolen resources to another group, I oppose a nanny state that believes it knows what is best for all of us. I oppose massive bailouts to companies that should be allowed to file bankruptcy and restructure. I oppose huge concessions to unions while my hard-earned tax money is being used to underwrite those concessions. I oppose treating Israel like a rogue state and easing our prosecution of the war on terror. I oppose driving up the costs of everything from electricity to gasoline in a vain effort to reduce carbon emissions and thus reduce the mythical man-made global warming. I oppose the government's attempts to spy on us, to take away our freedoms and our liberties in exchange for dubious security.
None of this has anything at all to do with race. It has to do with what is best for this nation. President Obama is wrong on any number of his ideas and initiatives. I will continue to oppose them, just as I did when Clinton, Dean, Kerry, Gore and so many other left-wing liberals proposed them. The conservatives of this nation will continue to oppose the ideas, regardless of the race, gender, religion, etc. of the president promoting them.
Playing the race card is an easy way to distract from real discourse and intellectual debate on the ISSUES. It is a trick of the left and they are attempting to use it to their advantage as they always have. The difference is that, now, with healthcare on the chopping block, the race card no longer works. We are no longer distracted by the left's dog and pony shows. The issues are being discussed and debated and that is a good thing. That is when democracy truly works.
"Playing the race card is an
"Playing the race card is an easy way to distract from real discourse and intellectual debate on the ISSUES."
This editorial notwithstanding, intellectual debate is exactly what has been largely MISSING.
The left plays the race card and the right plays any number of cards (socialism, "death panels," etc. I believe the Nazi card has been played by both the left and the right this time around.
So where's the "intellectual" discussion?
Becuase THAT is a charitable
Becuase THAT is a charitable and Christian statement...attack a broad group of people unjustly becaise of a few kooks. I am a Catholic. I am also a republican. I believe that charity is a vital mission in our Christian lives and I tithe 10% every paycheck and give of my time to helping the homebound in my parish. I do not believe that charity is paying taxes. There is no charity in that becuase it is not optional. I also believe that the health care bill is bad for your country, bad for our elderly, bad for our poor and bad for our unborn. Just look at England. They are debating withholding vital operations to the elderly, smokers, and people who are overweight in order to lower costs. There are are huge wieght times for seeing doctors and ERS are far worse than here. There are many reasons to be against this health care plan (and I do not deamonize those who are for it I understand the desire for everyone to have healthcare- esp since I currently dont have any) Please try not to demonize and act highly unChristian to me and my views.
May God bless you and keep you in His lovign embrace
Jackie
The reform of health care
The reform of health care should be a slow and well-thought out process. All players should have input into the decison-making process. The Obama Administration's attempt to rush something so important into law is frightening and dangerous. Obama's further attempts to demonize anyone who asks questions should be a concern for all good people of conscience.
There was plenty of
There was plenty of opposition to the National Health Service here in the UK when it was first proposed. But it came mainly from the medical profession who visualised loss of earnings. I think you would have to look very hard nowadays to find a doctor, or indeed anyone,who would oppose it.
Of course there are plenty of criticisms of aspects of the system – and there always will be. But at least we know that everyone, down to the very poorest, can get equal care. A prosperous society which chooses not to have a universal system is frankly sick.
Learn from the bits we got wrong, look at other countries' systems, and design a system everyone will want to copy. Then you will be able to hold your heads high. Right now, you can't.
why is this excellent and
why is this excellent and intelligent and accurate article anonymous? Fear for the wackos like Kostric and Palin? Or the ghost of "I am a contra, too" Henry Hyde?
Why was it just okay for him to kill Catholics in Nicaragua in the eighties (including good and holy friends of mine) but he gets a great pro-life wreath for preventing universal health care?
just wondering
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
An antidote for the poisoning
An antidote for the poisoning of the health care debate might start with
more orderly formats for Town Hall Meetings. Respect and courtesy for/from
each side of the issue could go a long way. The screaming and shouting
matches which have characterized recent Town Hall Meetings should not be
condoned by those who organize them. Everyone should have the opportunity
to ask a question of an elected official, and have that person respond
without interruption. Should mayhem or chaos ensue, then those responsible
for the conducting of such an event should escort out of the hall anyone
who cannot seem to be able to control their emotions. The scandalous,
uncivile, and undemocratic behavior which the general public has been
exposed to in recent days, may be just what our sensationalizing media thrives
upon, but the rest of us who appreciate a logical and reasonable debate on
the pros and cons of health care reform proposals expect more and better from
our fellow American citizenry. We should be giving a much better example to
our children who are the next generation of taxpayers and voters.
This week I was subjected to
This week I was subjected to a 15-minute mis-informed harrangue by a Respect Life advocate who came to my office to tell me that "President Obama's health bill" would kill the elderly and chronically ill; force people to have abortions; ration health care (as though the poor and the uninsured aren't already being rationed) and turn our country into a Nazi state. She claimed that she had a document from the USCCB that told her so, although she couldn't present such a document for me to see. She seemed offended with the suggestion ----as stated in the above article---- that the Bishops and other Catholic interest groups have been advocating for universal health coverage for a long time. Whose kool-aid are these people drinking???? And how embarassing for us to see the organized "Respect Life" movement appear so aggressively retrogade?
I would have told her just
I would have told her just what you said here and asked her to leave. Why should anyone be forced to listen politely to this type of willful ignorance or flat out lies? People like this woman are a cancer on the prolife movement.
Directorina, how do we know
Directorina, how do we know if there is any veracity in what you are saying?
These views aren't really
These views aren't really that unusual among many who strongly identify as pro-life Catholics. Most of them don't really believe this tripe, they just spread it around in chain emails for the entertainment of fellow Obama haters.
At AlaNon we are encouraged
At AlaNon we are encouraged not to speak about political issues. So, afterwards, at lunch all the 'healthcare chatter' started. O.K. When I asked why we were talking about this topic the reply was, "The meeting is over."
That's not all 'that's over' if we don't reshape the so-called healthcare we have in place. Let's all get healthy.
The Obama administration so
The Obama administration so far has refused to categorically state that the healthcare bill will NOT fund abortion, that my tax $'s will not pay for the destruction of life. It's another instance where the administration plans to devide and win the Catholic support just as they did during the election campaign. It worked very well then, hopefully believing Catholic will not fall for it this time. His commitment to Planned Parenthood was no idle talk. This healthcare bill is the vehicle to broaden the abortion mandate; PP is all for this bill. Do we need reform of the system, yes, but not at the expense of the unborn. Also, no one has yet said how we are going to pay for this. Since we already have a huge deficit the only way I see is higher taxes and limiting healthcare services, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Look at the tax rates in Europe, 50%-75%....is this what we want in our country?
The deranged protests at the
The deranged protests at the Town Hall meetings show that the prolife movement has gone whacko. They are unaware in their fanaticism that health insurance companies, Big Pharma and assorted right wingnuts are using them to further an agenda that is not good for America and flies in the face of Catholic social justice teaching. Please keep the moderate,well-reasoned and informative editorials coming.
Very fascinating and
Very fascinating and informative treatment of the subject, Mr. Anonymous. Or is that your first name?
The United States of America
The United States of America is a FREE MARKET ECONOMY. Deal with it. You can't afford a Mercedes? Drive a Chevy. Can't afford a Chevy? Take the bus. Don't have bus fare? Walk. It's just that simple. If you don't have insurance, you have no right to healthcare and no right to lean on others who are productive members of society. ObamaScare is a witch hunt against insurance companies who have given Americans the finest health care available on the planet. ObamaScare is SOCIALIZED MEDICINE hatched by liberals for the benefit of LOSERS and ILLEGAL ALIENS and it would RAISE MY TAXES! It's IMMORAL. How could the Church possibly support anything this illegitimate administration proposes? Wake up, Bishops! Speak Out! Archbishop Burke? Chaput? Doran of Rockford? Fr. Zuhlsdorf? Where are the Catholic Voices of Reason? We need them to speak loudly and forcefully on behalf of the Church: "OBAMASCARE IS IMMORAL AND WOULD RAISE YOUR TAXES!" It should be made perfectly clear that opposition to Obama is a matter of personal salvation for all God fearing people. Those of us who are Authentically Orthodox Faithful Prolife Catholics demand the Bishops speak out at once! We know this "man of color" Barack HUSSEIN Obama (sans valid American birth certificate) is a Muslim imposter, a King Herod yearning to execute sweet little innocent babies both in and out of the womb as our dear Sarah correctly hinted. We also know he is secretly planning FORCED ABORTIONS for everyone with more than one child ("The Chinese Plan"). He wants to save billions on SS and Medicare by EUTHANIZING ALL CAUCASIANS on their 75th birthday, and plans MASS EXTERMINATION OF REPUBLICAN PROLIFE CATHOLICS ("The Final Solution"). He's been caught on tape saying "this will shut them up for once and for all" accompanied by an evil chuckle. Of course, you will not hear any of this from the LIBERAL MEDIA. You cannot trust anyone. They are all in on the plot and sworn to a Conspiracy of Silence. You must decipher, read between the lines, visit the right websites, confront the Socialist DemocRat Enemy at Town Hall meetings and raise hell, stockpile munitions, and OPPOSE-OPPOSE-OPPOSE! Have a Plan--What will you do when the Death Squad comes to your door?
Yes, Authentically Orthodox,
Yes, Authentically Orthodox, the US is a free market system. You can chose the type of car you want to buy according to how much you want to spend. You can purchase a home that fits with your finances. These are choices you can make with no injury to yourself or anyone else. But you cannot always chose if you will remain healthy. You can practice all kinds of healthy habits, but you can still become ill. What kind of Christian are you to say that the only people who have a right to healthcare are those with insurance, and the rest are lazy and deserve to be ill or even die? Health care does not belong in the free market because in most cases we have no choice in illness. The health care system has been turned into profit centers first and foremost, and providers of healing care second.
Where are the Catholic voices of reason? Well, check out the USCCB health care website (better late than never). If we are followers of Jesus, then this fight should be ours. Instead of denigrating the universal health care systems of the other industrialized countries, do a little research and see how they work. They are set up differently from each other, but we can certainly learn from them. These countries are proud of their systems for one main reason-everyone receives decent health care. Here you will find truly humane, and Christian treatment of our fellowmen. We do not have to set a system up from scratch.
Your continual racist and hateful rantings against President Obama make one wonder what kind of orthodox you are....it surely is not a religious one. I am sure there is nothing that will change your mind, so I will not try, but maybe, just maybe a little more orthodox following of the commands of our Lord Jesus might make you a little more compassionate toward your fellow humans. "Love one another as I have loved you." I hope you never have to face an illness so terrible that you lose your job, your insurance, your life savings, and yes, even your home. When you see a scene like that played out at the Forum in Los Angeles this past week, your thought should be one of gratitude, "there but for the grace of God go I." But at the same time we should be ashamed that in the richest country in the world, there exists third world conditions of "health care".
Peace and blessings.
I cannot believe that this
I cannot believe that this bizarre, paranoid screed got past the censor!
Mr. Orthodox pretty much sums
Mr. Orthodox pretty much sums up the opposition to healthcare. If you have no money, you have no rights - to healthcare or, I'm sure in his opinion, to anything else.
The so-called 'blue ribbon'
The so-called 'blue ribbon' panel of 'experts' that Barack Obama rolled out is
a DEATH PANEL. It was his idea, just as it was his idea that 'small town America, clinging to their guns and bibles...' represented some strange behavior. There were his words, not mine. I suggested to my grandson, who is a senior at University of Georgia, three years ago that he needed to decide what side of the street he would walk on for there would come a time when the elderly might be taken to the back lot and disposed of. The Harvard/Stanford cabal is not unlike the pseudo-intellectuals who formulated certain ideas while sipping beer as they sat beside the Rhein River four generations ago.
Sister Sarah Palin is correct in that what is proposed in not a health panel, but a death panel. Take her words as serious and thank her for stating them. As a senior citizen and Army veteran I say that you might re-think this journey called Obamaism. It was clear to this African in America that a new deal was needed in this world. Unfortunately, I, like many, thought that our message of withdrawal from Iraq and universal health care-single payer system had been heard. It is clear that we were conned. The Physicians for a National Health Program has the plan. The key word is access.
You do not have to like Sister Sarah Palin to recognize that the DEATH PANEL notion came from Barack H. Obama's mouth. That genie will never be recapped.
Has the Catholic Church in
Has the Catholic Church in America come to stand for "Conservative Republican?" (I see now that Newt Gingrich has converted, but according to this week's TIME Magazine, he is so devout, he brings novels to read in Church.) The Church USED to stand for "Social Justice", "The Golden Rule" and Helping Those Who Could Not Help Themselves, a la The Good Samaritan, but it seems we have reverted to a kind of Dark Ages type of thinking where the Gospels are nowhere in sight.
"Love Thy Neighbor" used to have a lot to do with our Religion; now it seems to have a lot to do with the bedroom and the "You shall nots". Love appears to have gone out the window. Surely there is little evidence of LOVE at most of the recent Town Hall Meetings, (the ones in New Hampshire, Grand Junction CO and the one in Montana being notable exceptions). I frequently attended Town Halls in New England as a young person, and they were wonderful to see, with sometimes rancorous debate on several sides, but always in a fairly controlled fashion, and with respect for order. However, these travesties organized by Dick Armey, the former Congress member and now lobbyist, are another thing entirely---political theater,as the Media has loved to call it, rude, "a mob scene" and the doom of representative democracy as we knew it. What are our children and grandchildren to think of the Town Halls and Town Meetings WE used to know? The orderly processes we still have in the Town where I presently live?
I worked for a large insurance company in the nineties (Aetna) and I can testify that by all means, not all policyholders got their fair shake from the company when it came to case (which they misnamed "care") management. It was not frowned on, at all, to deny care, although the insurance customer always had the right (if they had the energy, being ill) to "appeal". And, in fairness, often they won. (But, having been through this with my own insurance company, even though I "knew the ropes", it is exhausting, with bill collectors calling at all hours, etc.)
With regard to insurance "care" managers, it depended on the individual who was managing the case and the rigidity of personality structure. Some people "lived" to "deny" care. And, while some of us fought like heck to see what we could DO for people, others fought like heck to see what they could NOT DO! (They usually got the bonuses, by the way.) They were "in between the individual and his or her doctor" and they have been, (with most insurance companies) for many years.
The only difference now, with the Government being involved, is that money might not be siphoned off so much to profit stockholders. I actually think that might be a good thing. Should peoples' illnesses, life or death, be dependent on the stockholders?
What would Jesus say, People?
You said it Old Fogey, and
You said it Old Fogey, and most people who don't wake up every day with the political blinders on see it that way too. It's time (yet again) to vote them out of office and try again to elect people who honestly represent the will of the people.
Recently Americans has been
Recently Americans has been subjected to unprecedented levels of federal government spending with items such as bank bailouts, public sector takeover of car companies, pork ladened stimulus packages, and cash for clunker programs. It is no wonder that large numbers of tax payers are enraged and are showing up at town hall meetings vociferously expressing their discontent over “health care reform”. The Obama Administration attempted to jam through “health care reform” prior to the August congressional recess with little public debate and without sufficient explanation of the plan(s) to the American people. The current array of “health care reform” bills that are in congress appear, in varying degrees, to contain budget busting government mandates fraught with incomprehensible language and are filled with massive new powers for the federal government. Citizens are now beginning to learn some of the details and are rightfully concerned. For example:
1) “House Democrats would hand over vast powers to a new “Health Choices Commissioner,” the head of new bureaucracy charged with regulating basically ALL health insurance offered in America. The commissioner would become the chokepoint for all major health care policy decisions, such as what constitutes qualified insurance or employer compliance to federal mandates… (this allows for) vast power and little accountability.”
2) “In both the House and the Senate HELP bills, full time work is heavily penalized. For the most part, the unemployed and part timers are entitled to subsidized insurance. But full time workers receive no such subsidy. Their employers must offer them coverage or face severe penalties and the workers have no choice but to take it or face severe penalties themselves.”
3) “The House bill creates something called a Health Care Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (CERTF) which would be funded by fees on insurance providers. But insurers won’t pay these fees themselves, they will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher premiums, President Obama pilloried Senator McCain for proposing “for the first time in history… taxing people’s health care benefits,” yet that is what the House Democrats are looking to do in their bill.” Note the cost shifting implications of this stealth tax upon the American people and contrast it to the President’s disingenuous claims that we will not experience any new taxes.
4) “So much attention has been focused on… the push for a new government run insurance plan that many people do not realize that the Democrats are also seeking the largest expansion of Medicaid in the program’s history… the House bill would add 11 million more enrollees to Medicaid, bringing total enrollment to about 71 million and adding more than $80 million in new spending… on top of $426 billion that the (highly inefficient) program will already cost under current law.”
5) “Section 1901 of the House bill would repeal a trigger intended to alert Congress and the public to the financing problems in the Medicare program… Repealing this provision is one more indication that Democrats are not serious about addressing the explosion of entitlement spending…”
The above are just a few egregious examples buried deep inside these indecipherable pieces of legislation that represent a huge intrusion by the federal government into the lives of the American citizenry.
In 1787 as Ben Franklin was leaving the Constitutional Convention he was famously asked by Mrs. Powel, “Well doctor what to we get a republic or a monarchy?” Dr. Franklin replied “A republic if you can keep it.” Dr. Franklin was implying that citizens must be ever vigilant against the encroachment of government and to beware of slick talking, power seeking politicians who have an insatiable appetite for taking away our liberty. So I say: Hurray for those citizens that are standing up to an arrogant president and his free spending congressional allies who think so little of the American people that they tried to aggressively force upon us a bureaucratic medical reform albatross without properly disclosing its excessive costs and many potential negative consequences.
(1) The health care reform bill analysis provided by James Capretta, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and Tevi Troy, a visiting senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in the 8/10/09 edition of the National Review.
Your "analysis" is hardly
Your "analysis" is hardly unbiased. The Hudson Institute is a rightwing think tank and the National Review describes its website as a place for "Republican/conservative news, commentary, and opinion". Other than that, nice job with the cut & paste. It's amusing how Republicans are suddenly enraged over deficits this year. We heard barely a peep out of them when the large surplus of 2001 suddenly evaporated, when trillions were (and continue to be) poured into Iraq and trillions more during the Wall Street bailout of last fall. Np problem there but now they're suddenly outraged at the prospect of money being spent to help average Americans afford basic health care. What a crock.
Dear Anonymous: Thanks for
Dear Anonymous: Thanks for taking the time to respond to my posting. I have a few comments.
1) I specifically cite authors to inform other readers of the sources for my information; however, you apply terms like “rightwing” and “conservative” in a pejorative manner to them. This is merely an ad hominem attack on your part. No one denies that Hudson Institute will approach an issue from a free market and small government angle, but dismissing their ideas with depreciatory labels has no bearing on the quality of their argument relative to this specific debate.
2) You seem to belittle my quoting of secondary sources regarding the legislation content analysis with the phrase, “nice job with the cut & paste.” This is a specious statement. The point of my citing specific examples was to address the NCR editorial position that opponents of the current “health care reform” legislation are distorting concerns regarding the bills or are only focused on single issues. Now most members of the general public who attempt to stay abreast of current affairs will typically read secondary sources. The average citizen does not have the time, wherewithal or requisite experience to read the thousands of pages of various legislative proposals that are winding their way through the Senate and congressional subcommittees; hence I quote articles written by experienced people that analyze the bills and cite the sources. But perhaps you are different from me. Perhaps you have personally read the over 1,000 pages each of the various House bills and the 600+ pages of the Senate version and are intimately familiar with their content. If so, then please feel free to provide your review. We await your analysis.
3) No where in your posting do you address any of the examples of the legislative concerns that I brought up. Just what is this shadowy “Health Choices Commissioner” with these alleged unaccountable powers? Why are Democrats eliminating mechanisms to control Medicare costs? What does a Health Care Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund do? Will the federally mandated costs on salaried workers drive up unemployment rates as it does in Europe? What about hidden taxes lurking in the bill when the President adamantly claims that there will be no new taxes on incomes under $250,000. How many hidden taxes are there? One may speculate that these few examples are only the tip of the costly government controlled iceberg. However, if you have different information, then feel free present your case.
4) When you say “the prospect of money being spent to help the average American afford health care” are you contradicting the President’s claim that the bill will be revenue neutral? The use of “spent” within the context of this sentence suggests an increase in health care expenditures and, hence, you seem to agree with my position that the President is being disingenuous about the costs of his program.
All people of good will want affordable health care for our citizens. But rushing bills through congress filled with bureaucratic government mandates, hidden taxes and cost shifting to the private sector will end up exacerbating the current health care system issues.
As someone born and raised in
As someone born and raised in Britain (Scotland, to be exact), I cannot understand how universal health care is not seen by each and every Catholic American as part and parcel of the Common Good. There were fascinating moments here last week when it was announced that minor Tory politicians were rubbishing the National Health Serivce to American audiences. David Cameron, their Leader, had to say how much the Tory Party supported it. There was one very important reason for this: the British people cherish the NHS and the Tories are still seen as not too keen on it, a definite vote loser.
I'd be interested to know if
I'd be interested to know if the NHS covers abortion other than for the usual incest, rape, etc. If it covers elective abortion, what do the Catholic bishops & faithful have to say about it? If it was like here you would probably have bishops campaigning for the Tories, but I've heard the US is the only place where the Church is being politicized and torn apart over that one issue.
The USCCB recently launched a
The USCCB recently launched a new site on health care reform. www.usccb.org/healthcare
As a doctor can I make a
As a doctor can I make a comment? Yes, everyone should have healthcare coverage. The government can set up it's own public option. Membership is based on income. To prevent running insurance companies out of business only those w/ a certain low income can join. Doctors are hired to see them on a primary care basis, usually at an office setting located in a hospital or "doc in a box". These docs are hired by the government to provide care BUT to keep costs down patients need to agree to give up their right to file civil suits and can only see these doctors. This is NOT inferior care, only no frills care. If the doc breaks the law, commits a felony etc then of course the pt may seek legal redress of course. Same goes for hospitalization. The hospital can contract with the government for hospital care. The savings in turning ER's back into emergency rooms instead of seeing routine/minor care would help subsidize the hospital care along w/ government assistance. Furthermore, NO abortions permitted. You want one, pay for it yourself. Now the question is do we make coverage mandatory? I believe it should be otherwise there will be those who won't pay for the coverage just because they don't want to but still show up at the ER (I see them all the time, irresponsible "let someone else pay" types) . Healthcare is NOT free, everyone needs to contribute something toward it. Otherwise everyone loses. That's my two cents worth.
I am glad to see this
I am glad to see this editorial. I probably missed the other healthcare pieces in the NCR, but I swear we're so deep into the discussion (LA Times reporting today Obama is willing to accept a plan without a public option!) and it feels like this is the first one on the healthcare debate. All I've been relying on to sort out the distortion is factcheck.org and politifact.com.
Post new comment