The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Obama aligned to U.S. bishops on health care
Oct. 10, 2008
(CNS photo)In declaring that health care “should be a right for every American,” Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has squarely aligned himself with a teaching of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Now an organization of lay Catholics within the Democratic Party is challenging Sen. John McCain to switch his stance and do the same. “Catholic Democrats is calling on the McCain campaign to acknowledge the fundamental right to health care, especially for the most vulnerable of our population,” the group said in a written statement Wednesday.
If the Catholic notion of the ‘common good’ really means anything, it surely motivates us to help keep all Americans healthy through an insurance system that covers everyone,” said Dr. Patrick Whelan of Boston, a pediatric specialist who serves as the group’s president.
The McCain campaign did not respond to a request for its reaction.
The American bishops’ 2007 statement on Faithful Citizenship, while endorsing no political party, calls health care a “fundamental human right” and an “urgent national priority.”
Although neither candidate is Catholic, Obama has recently sought to highlight his early connections to the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, who served as the first general secretary of the bishops' conference and later as its president. In an interview with Catholic Digest, Obama remembers as the cardinal as “a wonderful figure in Chicago I had the opportunity to work with, who said that health care should be a right.” When Obama was in the Illinois Legislature, he co-sponsored a proposed Amendment to the state Constitution named for Bernardin that would have made health care a right of all Illinoisans.
In Tuesday’s presidential debate, moderator Tom Brokaw asked both candidates whether health care was a privilege, right or responsibility. Their answers illuminated the stark difference in their approaches to fixing a health care system that has become unaffordable and inaccessible to many ordinary Americans.
McCain stressed the responsibility of individuals and employers. “I think it is a responsibility in this respect -- in that we should have available and affordable health care to every American citizen,” McCain said. But government mandates make him nervous, he said, and he implied the responsibility should be diffuse. “It is certainly my responsibility. It is certainly small-business people and others, and they understand that responsibility. American citizens understand that. Employers understand that.”
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
Obama countered with perhaps the most fervent statement of the debate, on a night when both candidates seemed cautious and methodical.
“I think it should be a right for every American,” Obama said. “In a country as wealthy as ours, for us to have people who are going bankrupt because they can't pay their medical bills -- for my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they're saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don't have to pay her treatment, there's something fundamentally wrong about that.”
Obama’s health care plan relies on economies of scale, based on large numbers of people choosing to enroll in the same kind of health insurance plan that covers the U.S. Congress if they are unhappy with their current coverage or don’t have any. Subsidies would be available for low-income people to enroll. Children would be required to be insured, but adults would not. People happy with their current coverage could keep it, and the proposal includes measures aimed at reducing the cost of their premiums.
McCain’s plan relies on marketplace competition that he says would be generated if insurance companies were freed from state-by-state regulation and could vie against one another nationwide, selling health coverage person by person. Individuals and families would receive a $2,500 or $5,000 tax credit, respectively, and regardless of level of need, to help them pay a portion of the cost of buying their own insurance.
Obama says his plan could be paid for by allowing the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for people making more than $250,000 and by potential cost-savings from increased efficiency in health care. Large businesses would need to provide employees health benefits or contribute toward the public coverage.
McCain’s plan would be paid for by the 177 million people whose health insurance comes through their employers. They would have their employer-provided benefits taxed as income, for the first time ever. The idea is not finding much support among businesses or doctors.
“Sen. McCain's plan to tax employee health benefits just like all other income is a radical experiment that could result in an additional 20 million working people losing the health insurance they currently have,” Dr. Whelan said. An estimated 45 million Americans are currently uninsured.
Neither candidate offered clear solutions for Medicare, the health insurance program for the elderly and disabled. Many primary care doctors no longer accept new Medicare patients, and both Medicare and Social Security face a crisis in funding as baby boomers retire.
Obama’s published plan includes cutting funding from the Medicare Advantage Plans introduced in 2003. McCain said the benefits provided by entitlement programs would need to be reduced. Pressed for specifics, both in the debate and in telephone requests, neither the candidates nor campaign staffs have provided details.
The bishops of America ought
The bishops of America ought to be commended for promoting health care for the 47 million Americans (many of them poor) who have been left to fend for themselves.
America is the only country in the industrialzed west, that does not consider health care a basic human right. It is a strange coincidence, that America is the only country among the industrialized west, that had slavery for well over two hundred years of its history. Slaves were totally dependant on their owners for survival, including health care.
The hangover from the days of slavery still persist, when a human being in America (white or black in color) is at the total mercy of his/her "employer" to have health care provided by the employer, and not by a "civilized" government. That unfortunately is capitalism at its worst - where money, profits and CONTROL of the lives of citizens (for profit and the almighty "falling" dollar!) come before human dignity and compassion.
Frank
The US is also the only
The US is also the only industrialized country where health care is not rationed as in Canada and the UK. There the health service decides who gets what treatment when. You wait months or years for non-critical surgery. Is that better? I've had health insurance through my employer (I pay a portion of the premium, as well as copays and minimums) since I graduated from college. My son has its own small business, has a modest income, and has an affordable health insurance policy. There are companies selling insurance out there. You just have to buy it. But you liberals want it handed out to you. You want my taxes to go up to pay for it. Just be aware that there is no free lunch. Someone productive is paying for it. And the parallel with slavery is, well, over the top.
No rationing of medical care
No rationing of medical care in the USA? Really? Why do you think your doctor has to call your insurance company to authorize certain treatments? Is that not rationing?
While I agree that we already
While I agree that we already have rationing, the facts concerning the BOGUS 47 million uninsured are the more important aspect of the health care reform debacle.
Star Parker, of http://www.townhall.com, wrote an excellent article pertaining to the ridiculous usage of 47 million NEEDING insurance;
Monday, June 22, 2009
Star Parker : Townhall.com Columnist
The uninsured: A bogus excuse for trillions in new welfare spending
by Star Parker
The Democrats' health care initiative reminds me of the joke about the Boy Scout fighting on a street corner with an old lady.
When a passerby asked what was going on, the scout said, "I'm trying to help her across the street but she refuses to go."
Health insurance, so far, is not mandatory by law, and we've got 16 percent of the population -- 47 million or so -- without it. Auto insurance is mandatory by law, and according to the Insurance Research Council, 14 percent of drivers nationwide still don't buy it.
Government can't make people do what they don't want to do. And it can't change human nature. Political freedom and capitalism work so well because they reflect the truth that human beings have free choice. But this means individuals take personal responsibility.
The left has always been in denial about this, which is why they're endlessly trying to expand government and reduce freedom. They see individuals as hapless victims the state must take care of.
During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama said "The reason people don't have health insurance isn't because they don't want it. It's because they can't afford it."
This is largely not true.
According to a new study from the Employment Policy Institute, authored by two economists from City University of New York (one, June O'Neill, spent four years as head of the Congressional Budget Office), 43 percent of the 47 million can afford insurance and choose not to purchase it.
According to 2007 census data, 20 percent of uninsured households earn over $75,000.
Regarding the remaining 57 percent, the authors call them "involuntarily" uninsured because they can't afford insurance. But "involuntarily" is also a misnomer, because it implies no connection in how they choose to live to the fact that they can't afford insurance.
The study provides the following portrait of this population: About a third are high school dropouts; they are disproportionately young; about a third are immigrants, mostly Hispanic non-citizens; about half are single without children; about 40 percent did not work during the year.
Pulling immigrants out of the equation, we're left with an uninsured population that can't afford insurance that is about a third the size of the widely quoted 47 million. It's a population that is generally poor, young, uneducated, and not working.
We're already set up to deal with these folks. Either through Medicaid or covering their emergency room visits. The operative question is do we want to further institutionalize this reality into a new national health care plan involving trillions in new taxes and programs.
I think the answer is clear: No.
What should we do?
A recent study by consulting firm McKinsey & Company on American education estimates our annual GDP would increase by $500 billion if the educational performance of black and Latino kids is raised to the national average. Otherwise stated, it is costing us $500 billion per year to not do this.
This dwarfs the excessive costs in health care that our president now calls our No. 1 economic problem.
It is simply not credible for Obama to propose taxing Americans trillions to subsidize health care when he refuses to come to grips with why so many are poor.
Open the door to millions of poor kids out of broken families, broken public schools, and the cycle of poverty through school choice. Give them the opportunity to go to church schools.
Rather than perpetuating poverty through further institutionalization of the welfare state, expose poor kids to the values and education necessary to enable them to make the right choices for their lives.
There is no future for a nation of victims, whether we're talking about health care or anything else. But there is a great future for a country of responsible, free people.
I believe that health care
I believe that health care is a moral issue. When I was young, I remember priests who would talk of health care, fair wages, employment, and a better life for Americans. They were willing to discuss moral issues from the pulpit. Hopefully, they will return to my earlier days.
If you look over all at
If you look over all at Obama's platform, on issue after issue, he is much more aligned with our Bishop's than is McCain. Obama is much more aligned with the christ that preached love and respect than is McCain. Let's face it, with the escalating attacks and even threats of violence in the McCain and Pollin rallies, we are dealing with a desperate man in John McCain- one that sold his soul to Karl Rove and other neoconservatives. Four years of McCain would be as bad or even worse than 4 more years of W Bush. IF McCain should die from his melanoma, we would have Sarah Pollin, who is truly George Bush with lipstick on. She like George Bush is lazy, she is not widely read or at all experienced. We would have another puppet President. Would she have another Cheney to run our country?
Any one with good sense and good conscience should see through what is happening with all the failure of the Republican’s- an immoral and failed war, loss of constitutional rights, trashing of the constitution, the enrichment of the top .2 % over the middle class, a new Depression. It is interesting to see that the top executives of AIG who got $5 billion for a bail out paid bonuses to their top executives of $28 billion last year, and McCain does not want to raise their taxes. These same executives took a $400,000 business meeting for a weekend at the Ritz Carlton after the bailout and McCain does not want to raise their taxes. I don’t think we should confiscate those bonuses over the last few years, or raise their taxes to 110%.
This is an unethical and immoral regime that has run this country, one that has put corporations as the 4th part of government. That is both fascist and unconstitutional. But McCain does not want to raise these men's taxes- you know the ones that cause the financial melt down.
In a clear conscience, I must completely disagree with one issue politics and vote for Obama in this election. I am an independent voter that will be voting completely Democratic this cycle. I am voting against the culture of certain death.
Healthcare is a fundamental
Healthcare is a fundamental right. Fundamental.
And the Democrats stand up for other fundamental rights. Education, Economic Security, Clean Water, Public Transportation, Job Training. And many more fundamental rights.
Life, of course, is not a fundamantal right. It isn't even a non-fundamantal right. We can't have the governemt protecting the weak from the strong. No way. Can't impose our morality on others.
Obama's views on health care
Obama's views on health care as a "right" may align in word with the US Conference on Catholic Bishops and may even reflect his limited knowledge of Cardinal Bernadin's teaching. That said, Obama's views on when human life begins and the death penalty certainly do not square with the teachings of either group. Neither candidate comes close to approximating what Bernadin considered a "seamless standard" for life.
The thesis of the article
The thesis of the article and of many of the comments is that Obama's stated policies will produce enough good to compensate for his support of abortion, and that the US bishops support this view.
The Faithful Citizenship document states otherwise.
Par. 22: "These are called “intrinsically evil” actions. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. A prime example is the intentional
taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia."
Must ALWAYS be rejected and opposed. Did you see any exceptions there?
Tell me: how can you vote for Obama and pretend not to be supporting the killing of 1M INNOCENT lives each year? The next President will appoint one or more Supreme Court Justices. It is imperative that he be Pro-Life. The Democratic Party may be changing as there are several like Sen. Casey (PA) who are pro-life. But Obama isn't. The platform isn't. Voting Democratic=Voting for an intrinsic evil. Anything else is rationalization and sophistry.
It is my understanding that
It is my understanding that Obama is NOT for abortion---he is for addressing and solving the problems and issues that are at the root causes of abortion. Thw inequities in our society should be a piece of any discussion on abortion.
This is the true PRO-LIFE
This is the true PRO-LIFE agenda! Hurrah for National Catholic Reporter recognizing that this is how Catholics can take care of "the least of our brethren".
am somewhat reluctant to
am somewhat reluctant to comment being from the UK but nevertheless as I am a Catholic feel justified in doing so.
I agree with 'anonymous'
What about the health of the people of Iraq or the people of Gaza?
what has catholic social teaching to say about these matters ?
what will either candidate be doing to for the children of these lands on the birthday of Jesus this year?
Where is the candidate who will respond to the Catholic voices raised on their behalf ?
I believe there are over 40
I believe there are over 40 million people in the USA who have no health cover. This is incomprehensible to me as an Australian. Our system is certainly not perfect but everyone is covered under Medicare for public hospital treatment, and doctors' consultation fees are subsidised through Medicare. Many doctors bulkbill those on pensions (ie. they pay nothing and doctors claim lower fees from the government).
Private health insurance covers private hospital treatment and usually ancilliary services such as podiatry and weight-reduction classes. Private health insurance is not dependent on employers as it is taken out directly with an insurer (e.g. my husband and I pay about A$120 per month for private cover).
From watching the Obama/McCain debates, McCain would see this as an indication Australia is "socialist". I think very few here would consider Australia as socialist. Indeed, it would be very difficult for either major political party (Labor and Liberal) to ignore the Australian claim to a "fair go for everyone", which includes the right of everyone to have access to health care. This may be why polls taken in Australia indicate an overwhelming majority in favour of Obama over McCain for the presidency.
Healthcare IS a fundamental
Healthcare IS a fundamental right, and we should help the poor by helping them obtain (pay on their behalf) a health plan/appropriate coverage, however, the notion that Obama is correct in asserting that our government should pay for a healthcare policy for EVERYONE is absolutely absurd. We simply cannot afford it.
Yes, health insurance is expensive. But the underlying reason why this is so is a very complicated issue, and needs to be sorted-out. One reason why healthcare is so expensive is because the indigent use emergency rooms to obtain medical help; while most of us make an appointment at our family doctor.
But there are people who can afford to purchase health insurance (some of whom are living in expensive homes) who refuse to purchase a plan (not making it a priority) and later complain when a family member is stricken with a devastating illness (that threatens to bankrupt the family) that the government is somehow responsible and that the government should provide them with a health insurance plan....they say they are ENTITLED to it.
Justice is important--I most certainly agree that we need to help to insure the poor, but so is FAIRNESS--all of us makes choices in life, and each one of us is ultimately responsible for his or her decisions.
At the end of the day, Senator Obama is so out-of-touch on abortion (it's "above his pay-grade") that we don't even need to get to the healthcare issue (dead babies don't need healthcare, after all). What we need is a President (as well as Congressional leaders) who will acknowledge that unborn kids, like the poor, have HUMAN RIGHTS and DIGNITY, too. Let's work for justice; for the health, dignity, and welfare of EVERY living creature on God's green planet ("what you do for the least of my brethren you do for me"), “for liberty and justice for all,” and as vigilant keepers of the planet let us never forget our responsibility to administer justice fairly and equitably, “so help us God”.
I don't understand the
I don't understand the position of the Bishops with the healthcare. Since when charity is a right. Employers and employees have their moral responsability to aquire their healthcare.
Also it concern me because their dioceses have and carry the worst HMO programs to protect their employees and with the money they expend in their jubilees and other church activities they should provide better healthcare program for the employees of their diocesis
What's the definition of
What's the definition of Fundamantal right?
How does one define "fundamental right" so that free medical care is a fundmantal right, but being allowed to live is not a fundamantal right?
How will people who say that there is a fundamantal right to kill the "least of our bretheren" propose to "take care of the least of our bretheren, after they've been killed? All I can think of is free funerals.
Are questions about heath insurance plans really more important than 'which people have a right to live'?
The fundamental right to
The fundamental right to Promote the Welfare of the people is in the US Constitution.
The question is: How has the issue of protection and care for ALL human life been separated into different PARTS.
One party seems to support a part and the other party the other part.
It is confusing to vote for either party based on this alone.
The WHOLE issue is THE COMPLETE PROTECTION AND CARE FOR HUMAN LIFE FROM CONCEPTION TO OLD AGE, AND FINALLY NATURAL DEATH.
When either party adopts the WHOLE issue the life issue can be a sole reason to vote for a particular party.
When are we going to
When are we going to acknowledge that allowing women access to safe and legal abortion does not translate into "pro abortion?" No one is pro abortion, even those who would guard the right to choose. Even women who get abortions are not pro abortion. The right to choose includes the right NOT to terminate a pregnancy if doing so goes against one's religious or other moral standard. Bishops should be more worried about teaching the sanctity of life to Catholic men and women and stop interfering with legal rights of all citizens. Also, the sanctity-of-life concept should continue after birth and into adulthood; why aren't Catholic leaders preaching the concept of Conscientious Objection? Why approve sending people overseas to kill thousands of grownups and then get all fired up about the unborn fetus? Bishops preach that all life is sacred, but it appears to me that all they really care about is pregnancy, not life itself. Once the "unborn" becomes an "infant" they lose interest.
Post new comment