Catholic Exchange

Catholic Doctrine and the Public Option

I claim no expertise in Catholic doctrine, nor for that matter theology; but I have studied them some in relation to law and social justice and as a matter of personal edification. Recently, I have heard of protestations within the Faith against the spectre of the Public Option and “socialized medicine” as such. Again, as I claim no expertise, I’ll just present and lend some analysis to what lies before me; I speak only for myself.

I consulted my copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church , Second Edition (revised in accordance with the official Latin text promulgated by Pope John Paul II), Libreria Editrace Vaticana. According to the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum , On the Publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “The Doctrinal Value of the Text,” this Catechism is “a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium.” The Catechism is also said to be “a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms.” According to the Apostolic Letter, Laetamur Magnopere in which this Catechism of the Catholic Church is Approved and Promulgated by John Paul II, it was “prepared by an Interdicasterial Commission” presided over by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.”

The Catechism

Part Three, Life in Christ, Article 3, Social Justice, Section II, “Equality and Differences Among Men.”

  • 1936 On coming into the world, man is not equipped with everything he needs for developing his bodily and spiritual life. He needs others. Differences appear tied to age, physical abilities, intellectual or moral aptitudes, the benefits derived from social commerce, and the distribution of wealth.[1] The “talents” are not distributed equally.[2]
  • 1937 These differences belong to God’s plan, who wills that each receive what he needs from others, and that those endowed with particular “talents” share the benefits with those who need them. These differences encourage and often oblige persons to practice generosity, kindness, and sharing of goods; they foster the mutual enrichment of cultures….

One might think that access to medical care for a sick man, regardless of “the difference” in “the distribution of wealth,” would be essential to “developing his bodily… life.” In addition, it seems plain within the text that despite (or perhaps because of) these “differences,” each should “receive what he needs from others.” There is no provision for pre-existing conditions; no provision which mandates that only the best capitalists’ health needs be met.

As for the prospect of a government constituted by the people and for the people providing en masse for these needs, it may be of some help to look to Part Three, Life in Christ, Article 3, Social Justice, Section I, “Respect for the Human Person.” This section precedes the section quoted above by about a page.

  • 1930 Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy.[3] If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects….

If this acknowledgment of certain inherent rights precedent to social structure sounds familiar, it should: as part of the promise which is the Declaration of Independence we are told that all men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and that it is “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Importantly, according to Catholic social justice doctrine, the basis for the moral authority of power (i.e. governance), and thus its legitimacy , is contingent upon its being in accord with the dignity of human beings. Therefore, the failure to reach such an accord in a society’s legislation calls to question the legitimacy of that society’s rule; the legitimacy of such rule being “undermined” in direct proportion to such failures.

As for an example of that which is required by the dignity of human beings/ legitimacy of rule, it may prove to be of some help to look again to “Equality and Differences Among Men.”

  • 1938 There exist also sinful inequalities that affect millions of men and women. These are in open contradiction of the Gospel:
  • Their equal dignity as persons demands that we strive for fairer and more humane conditions. Excessive economic and social disparity between individuals and peoples of the one human race is a source of scandal and militates against social justice, equity, human dignity, as well as social and international peace.[4]

I would suggest that supplying affordable access to health care to all within this country is the essence of striving for “fairer and more humane conditions.” And that respect for the dignity of mankind, upon which rests “the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority,” not only allows for such proposals as a Public Health Care Option, but, it would seem, demands it.


[1] 41. Cf. GS 29 Sect. 2 (footnotes are from the text of the Catechism, but appear here renumbered due to format. The original footnote number appears immediately after this document’s footnote number-in this instance, the original is “41.”

[2] 42. Cf. Mt 25:14-30; Lk 19: 11-27.

[3] 36. Cf. John XXIII, PT 65.

[4] 44. GS 29 Sect. 3.

Comments

52 responses to “Catholic Doctrine and the Public Option”

  1. c-kingsley Avatar
    c-kingsley

    I would suggest, on the contrary, that supplying affordable access to health care is the duty of those of us who accept the call of Christ. He didn’t tell us to take money from other people to take care of the poor. He told us to do it ourselves. This is called “charity.”

  2. AnnaMarie53 Avatar
    AnnaMarie53

    I quite agree with c-kingsley. Not only is his point valid, but if this government horror of their being in charge of all things medical, Catholic institutions which dare to refuse to perform abortions can, and will, be charged with a federal crime. Ask anyone, or any group, who has ever dated to buck Washington on any major issue like this one…if you can find any survivors.

  3. AnnaMarie53 Avatar
    AnnaMarie53

    I forgot to mention…the Cathecism does not state we are to address any “inequalities” via the federal government, or any other. As a matter of plain fact, any person can walk (or be carried) into any Emergency Room and be treated. Beyond that, Catholics were the first to establish any hospital of any kind, anywhere. We have always tried to take care of the poor, and compared to the world at large, have done an admirable job. I don’t see any reason for this editorial other than blatant Obama-doration!

  4. Mary Kochan Avatar
    Mary Kochan

    AnnaMarie wrote “I don’t see any reason for this editorial other than blatant Obama-doration!”

    Then you must not have spent much time around here.

    Mary Kochan, Senior Editor, Catholic Exchange

  5. mrsnelson Avatar
    mrsnelson

    I can see where Mr. Ricciardelli is coming from, but I believe he makes a large leap when he concludes that because it is our duty as Catholics to work toward “fairer and more humane conditions” and that government gains its moral legitimacy through its respect for the dignity of mankind, that a public health care option is not only morally permissible, it is necessary. I think it is rather simplistic to suggest that turning the government into a health insurance company or, worse yet, a health care provider is definitely NOT necessary in order to fulfill our moral obligation. If the government is able to empower the people to afford health care through other means, than the obligation is satisfied. Mr. Ricciardelli has not shown that Obama’s public option is the only way.

    In addition, he does not at all address the concern Catholics should have that this public option would, in essence, make taxpayers complicit in the immorality of killing innocent unborn babies. Obama has promised to include ‘reproductive health’ coverage in his health care reform and considering his absolute passion for abortion, you can be sure he will.

  6. mrsnelson Avatar
    mrsnelson

    Correction to error in my previous post:

    I think it is rather simplistic to suggest that turning the government into a health insurance company or, worse yet, a health care provider is definitely NOT necessary in order to fulfill our moral obligation.

    Should read:

    I think it is rather simplistic to suggest that turning the government into a health insurance company or, worse yet, a health care provider IS NECESSARY in order to fulfill our moral obligation.

    [Sorry, should have proofed before hitting send.]

  7. Kathryn Avatar
    Kathryn

    Okay. Fine. But will the “public option” work? That is the only question we should be asking here once we have decided it is our duty to provde health care for all. Does it work? Does the VA work? Medicare? Medicaide? SCHIPP? The County Public Health Dept? In fact, does any gov’t program work efficiently at low cost without fraud, and CAN IT BE GOTTEN RID OF once it has outlived its usefulness? Will it destroy private sector or relgious based opportunities to deliever health care (or any other good, say education). Can the Public Option (or any gov’t program) respond to the lightening fast speed of the technology saturated market-place we are used to and dependant on?

    Those questions need to be answered.

    If it works, great. Bring it on. Who wants people to end up loosing their homes or having to choose between food and medicine? What person wants that?

    But if it does not work, then I suggest you find a different way to get what the Catechism demands of us.

    Based on past experience, I’d say the Public Option for not only medicine but a variety of “help the poor” type programs do not work for very long. And we are seeing a break down in mail delivery, education, parks system, road systems, etc as well.

    Open your eyes Mr. Ricciardelli!

  8. Kathryn Avatar
    Kathryn

    As a follow up to my previous post, there was a caller on the radio a couple of days ago discussing with the host her attempt to get her toe X-rayed. She actually had to audacity to ask how much it was going to cost here. Something like $250. She asked for a lower price, which I think they were able to accomodate, but she decided to call around (she must haved lived in a large city–in our city, there is only one x-ray provider). Finally, she found a place that would do it for $20. $20 (don’t remember what she said about the radiologist fee). She called about 3 or 4 different places, but in each case, the first person she spoke with could not give her the price–she had to be transferred around to someone who could give her an answer (and as I understood it, the answer really depended on her insurance provide…and she wasn’t planning on usuing it I guess.)

    Imagine trying to buy a loaf of bread and no one could tell you the price. My point in relaying this story is to illustrate that there are terrible market distortions in the medical industry that happer the market causing very ineffeciente delivery–which of course increases the cost. Those issues need addressing.

  9. faz643 Avatar
    faz643

    IMHO, the biggest obstacle to creating meaningful reforms that actually help people is trust. Do we trust our government to be in control of billions of dollars of our money and to administer health benefits fairly and equitably? The resounding answer is NO!

    The President and his cohorts are once again trying to ram their vision of the world through congress by attempting to create a ‘the sky is falling’ atomosphere surrounding healthcare, just as they did with their economic package. No time to think, reflect, or even read the proposed legislation. We just have ‘to do something’ now.

    Any of us who have lived to regret kneejerk decsions made at the spur of the moment know that this is not the way to make prudent decisions, especially those with long term consequences. I am always skeptical of anyone who tells me I have to do or buy something now-as opposed to allowing me time to weigh the consequences. This initiative to push through healthcare legislation is no different.

  10. Warren Jewell Avatar
    Warren Jewell

    I bow to Madame Kochan’s worthy statement – CE bows to no one but God and His Church.

    However, the writer mentions nothing of subsidiarity, and the obligation that our Church holds that we subordinate public policies and processes to it. I can’t begin to cite all references to this since before Pope Leo XIII, and onward since his social encyclicals. Any is free to look them up, in their multitude.

    In subsidiarity, there is more to the sense of giving in charity and little of any coercive influence. Any ‘global’ or ‘national’ scope would merely ‘give’ a wider base of resources to the local efforts to care for human needs. It is Judeao-Christian impulsion in charity from the very lowest levels to give to who needs. Even those who would be viewed as ‘poor’ often are the most munificent givers to those whom they find in need.

    Of our current proffered federal choice of means to general health care, the mere idea of a primarily ‘national’ nature, through government, belies and would fatally undermine subsidiarity. They would take the natural-law right to bodily care and make it a civil ordinance that subordinates, even submerges, any and all lower levels of cares for needs to some ‘national’ bodies. Even if these were not governmental, these would be all wrong. Moreover, we sense an elitist supremacy in future decisions on health care that reek of mere economy without the regardful, e.g., (if I may say so) ‘Catholic Exchange’ of the local level of beggar-to-giver-to-beggar having sway. Plus, the vital traditional trinity of beggar-to-God-to-giver, resulting in giving to the beggar in his needs, is totally lost. There is the dynamics of spiritual power in prayer of appeal and personal begging for help, help inspired and given, and gratitude to God and caregiver for the care that would be lost. What was once charitable giving to need becomes coercively-obligated ‘entitlement’, that evermore apparent Ponzi confidence trick of a social horror.

    And, I think there is deep and understandable frustration that not all options are being given air even as we find our leaders and self-seeking businesses trying to force their all too ‘public option’ down our collective throats. Indeed, as ‘collective’ is a key thought here as it sets subsidiarity on its ear and charity adrift. What we perceive as collective is not at all like a giving community. ‘Collective’ also reflects our biggest problem, grown now over a period of selfishness with capitalist means – that of ‘big’ government, business, etc., that is dominating our national ways. Subsidiarity measures in preference from the smallest to the largest, not vice-versa. Subsidiarity is at its finest and truest one-on-one, compared to a big-anything chain of bureaucrats and bean-counters making uninvolved decisions and taking seemingly arbitrary actions.

    And, we can go on and on, eh? But this writer leaves subsidiarity and its force for charitable giving and most effectively meeting needs of all kinds out of his equation.

  11. mamreilly Avatar
    mamreilly

    Matthew 26:11 – the poor you will always have with you.

    God allows poverty, sickness, and suffering in this world because He wants us to act in a Christ-like manner and help our fellow human beings. I believe that Mother Teresa most perfectly fulfills the desire of God for us to serve our fellow human beings by doing it ONE ON ONE. I believe that he did NOT intend for us to abdicate that obligation to PERSONALLY serve our fellow human beings in need by passing it off to a government.

    What most of these people want that are pushing the “morality” of a public option (ignoring the obvious issues with abortion funding, death panels, and health care rationing limiting care), is to not have to deal with personally helping their neighbor. After all, it’s the government’s responsiblity to take care of those pesky poor people. We’ll pay some more taxes and then we can do what we do best, pay attention to our personal needs and wants.

  12. neiders Avatar
    neiders

    There needs to be reform which will provide care for the poor, but that does not mean that it has to be goverment run for all of us, and this bill will lead to that for sure. It will also take from those who are in need-such as the elderly through Medicaid cuts. Grant it for the true poor, there are programs out there already that are not very good, and as Catholics we are called to make sure that these are improved but to pass a bill that has so many downsides to is not the way. I think most of us would agree on those points, the current plan needs to be stripped down to help those who need it and leave what works for the rest of us alone.

  13. Bruce Roeder Avatar
    Bruce Roeder

    Wouldn’t it be nice if the social justice teachings of the Church were binding on the government?

    Mr. Ricciardelli wrote: “I would suggest that supplying affordable access to health care to all within this country is the essence of striving for ‘fairer and more humane conditions.’”

    Terrific!

    Now, let’s debate what we mean by “affordable”. Does that mean “no cost at the point of service” which some view as “free” and otheres see as “taxpayer funded”. Or does it mean some “co-pay” to be approved by the Provider. We also have the forty-year track record of Medicare and Medicaid to learn from (in the American model) and the longer history of socialized medicine in Europe and elsewhere.

    We can disagree and argue what’s better.

    Next, let’s debate what we mean by “health care”. Does that include every contact with any medical provider? Many in our government consider providing abortion an important part of “health care” for women. Does “health care” include artificial birth control? Is “death with dignity” icnluded as “health care”? Does it mean mandating lifestyle changes, like stopping tobacco use or even eating less fried foods?

    Again, we can disagree and argue what is better.

    Mr. Ricciardelli also wrote: “[The] respect for the dignity of mankind, upon which rests “the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority,” not only allows for such proposals as a Public Health Care Option, but, it would seem, demands it.”

    I agree with him to a point. It does seem to permit such a proposal. Would he also allow that it allows some to disagree with such a proposal, using the exact same underlying principle — respecting the dignity of the human person? It does not demand a public option, unles one trusts that the government will not craft “health care” policy and make “affordability” decisions contrary to the dignitiy of the human person.

    I’m sure many people have such trust in government. Many do not. So we can certainly debate it. But we ought not try to convince those who disagree with the public option that the social justice teachings of the Church are binding on the government.

  14. Donald Hudzinski Avatar

    Michael Ricciardelli, likes to quote the CCC.

    1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”7

    I believe that the Federal Government is not the lowest order to enact a public option.

  15. Warren Jewell Avatar
    Warren Jewell

    Will Dr. Ricciardelli please respond?

    I already see some of our finest commenters offering incisive questions about the article. We are having a jolly good exchange, and that is what all these comnment boxes are about.

    Please, respond.

  16. mamreilly Avatar
    mamreilly

    Bruce,

    I think you’ve hit on an excellent point.

    When you disassociate the payment for a good from the receipt of a good, the opportunity for that cost or amount spent for the same good increases versus if paid in cash.

    Consider the proven fact that people will pay more and spend more for a good if they pay by a credit care. Or, if they’ve already paid into something, like car insurance, home insurance, and/or HEALTH insurance, when it comes time to “collect”, the thought is, do whatever is covered. This is the driving reason behind decreased premiums for high deductibles. The more an individual is required to personally pay for something at point of use, the more discerning a consumer they are.

    Can you imagine the disassociation that occurs when you pay for something out of your taxes? Why, then you get what my parents and siblings (Canadian citizens) get, “FREE HEALTHCARE!”. Of course, they still have to buy NON-FREE supplemental health insurance (SSHHH! Noone wants anyone to talk about that) so they can have coverage for those conditions not covered by the government health plan, like access to thyroid specialists for a hyperactive thyroid condition or other non-essential stuff like cutting edge treatments for cancer (which would have to be done in the US b/c they don’t provide it in Canada).

    Just for the record, I don’t agree with Mr. Riciardelli even up to a point. He has manipulated the Catechism to support his thesis developed through his self-indulgent (personal edification) “research”. I apologize if this comes off as harsh, but so is this attempt to confuse and manipulate under the guise of being in line with the teachings of the Church. When this government, the administration, Congress, and the Supreme Court, starts to recognize the INHERENT SINFULNESS of not recognizingthe humanity of ONE MILLION lives that are brutally murdered every year through surgical abortion, I will MAYBE trust them to get more involved in solving the inequality in access to affordable healtcare… MAYBE.

  17. Mary Kochan Avatar
    Mary Kochan

    Folks, this man offers a sincere attempt to apply the teaching of the Church to the problem. We have already offered on this site many articles showing the problems with this idea of a public option. However, this all begs the question of HOW DO we apply the social justice teaching of the Church to the problem apart from a public option.

    I love all the calls for subsidiarity. Ok here’s a scenario: A family in your neighborhood has five children. The mom stays at home mom and homeschools the kids. The father lost his job and they could not afford the COBRA payment because they are barely hanging onto their home. The dad falls ill and is diagnosed with Hodgkins disease (a cancer). The same week, the 15-year old son, attempting to help his dad by cleaning the gutter for him, falls from the ladder and smashes the side of his head on a brick planter. He has a broken jaw, and damage both internal and external to one ear that requires surgery.

    They are suddenly faced with massive medical bills. The anticipated cost this year will be over $100,000 dollars. Who pays?

    Let’s go through the subsidiarity routine. We know that family can’t pay, so who or what entity is next up the ladder?

  18. mallys Avatar
    mallys

    Re: Mary’s question:
    I can only speak for what happens in SD in my experience. The relatives, neighbors and friends (churches included) start raising money: everything from bake sales to bingo nights. The sisters that run the Catholic hospital system (two orders combined) have a fund that looks at individual needs and how to cut the bills. The home-schooling consortium (either the Catholic one or the non-denom Christian one) swings into action for day to day help.

    I am sure that there is more, but I have seen all these things happen and have participated in some of them.

    As to the public option: there is one health care system run by the US government which no one mentions or thinks about when debating this question. It is the Indian Health Service. This system looks very much like Canada. The hospitals/clinics have massive waiting rooms. The nurses, PA’s and doctors are overrun and overwhelmed, though when you get in to see one, they do their level best to help. Anything over basic, direct care (and even some of that) is “contract health” and rationed strictly. When the money runs out (way before the fiscal year ends) that’s all there is. Medicare (without supplemental insurance benefits) is a step up. Some people are sent off (under Title XIX funding) to nursing homes off the reservation for hospice care, but most have no option but to go home with only the help afforded by their own families, untrained and unaided, to die. The tribes are always asking for (and promised by the government) improvements, that are slow in coming and rarely improve anything. That is why one gentleman in Montana spoke up at a town hall meeting and said he didn’t want “reservation health care.” This is the public option as it exists in our country today. And they don’t have the subsidiarity option because there are too few people that have incomes other than a totally inadequate welfare check and there are no structural systems other than governmental.

  19. momof11 Avatar
    momof11

    Neighbors help out with meals, homeschooling friends with needed curriculum and school supplies, thus freeing up some additional funds for the medical bills. The parish has fund raising dinners and takes up collections to help the family. Doctors and hospitals are appealed to for reduced rates or pro bono services. There are all sorts of ways to alleviate the situation. But there needs to be an acknowledgment that our help is in the Lord, Who made haven and earth. God is Almighty, not the US Government (or any other government). Having so many government programs to “help the poor” seems to have had an effect of lessening our awareness that we are called to do that ourselves. More and more our society is becoming cold and uncaring. The social justice teachings of the Church are a call to us, within the church to live the corporal works of mercy. If we do so, the witness of our lives will be an influence on others to do the same, and an attraction for them to see why we live the way we do. All encompassing government programs remove opportunities to present a living witness to the love and compassion of our Lord.
    Subsidiarity would call first on extended family to help out. Next the neighbors and the parish. Then the city, the county, the state, and only if all else fails the federal government. We seem to be wanting to by-pass all the lower level entities without giving them a chance to work!

  20. momof11 Avatar
    momof11

    Further, if “according to Catholic social justice doctrine, the basis for the moral authority of power (i.e. governance), and thus its legitimacy , is contingent upon its being in accord with the dignity of human beings. Therefore, the failure to reach such an accord in a society’s legislation calls to question the legitimacy of that society’s rule; the legitimacy of such rule being “undermined” in direct proportion to such failures.” just how legitimate is the power of an administration that seems to be set on every level against the dignity of the human person and the sacredness of every human life from the moment of conception until natural death?

  21. bixmom Avatar
    bixmom

    I appreciate Mr. Ricciardelli’s honest attempt at researching and applying Catholic principles to the health care debate. However, I don’t think this his conclusions are in sync with the statements that the U.S. Bishops have united on and shared with the faithful at thttp://www.usccb.org/healthcare/

    They are encouraging prayerful action that includes calling our Senators, representatives and members of Congress and urging them to:

    “1. Include health care coverage for all people from conception until natural death, and continue the federal ban on funding for abortions;

    2. Include access for all with a special concern for the poor;

    3. Pursue the common good and preserve pluralism, including freedom of conscience; and

    4. Restrain costs and apply costs equitably among payers.”

    The latter part of #4 stands out. Employers, charitable organizations, health care providers and government all should take some responsibility.

    Many object to the proposal of a public option for everyone regardless of income, family size, situation, etc. because of the strong possibility that it will lead to a single-payer system. The USCCB have also commented on that:

    “Q. Does support for health care for all mean support for a single-payer system?

    A. Health care is a basic human right. All parts of society need to cooperate to assure this right. One of the basic functions of government is to undertake efforts to promote the common good. This means reform efforts should be in partnership with all stakeholders including employers, charitable organizations, health care providers and government. Health care for all does not necessarily mean support for a single-payer system.”

    http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/projects/csmg/2009-hill_notes_for_health_care.pdf

    This Barney Frank interview demonstrates that when approached by proponents of a single-payer system, some will readily admit that the public option is likely the best way to get there:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98

  22. momof5kids Avatar
    momof5kids

    Ok. We are a family with 5 kids. We are a one income homeschooling family. When one of our children was 16 months old he was hospitalized for with a mysterious illness. We didn’t even ask for help. We had health insurance. But our friends and church still opened a fund to help us defray our personal costs. And in a typical “God” way of doing things, there was exactly the amount of money we needed. They even showed up with food and help.

    When there is a need, we look for ways to help. That is who we are, or who we should be. That is what God calls us to.

    If we strive to change our individual hearts and lives to be closer to God, then our society will change and these needs that are out there will be met. Access to health care is not a “right” but it is a “responsibility” that we have to help those who need it. Not through our government but through our own efforts.
    It may be eaiser to pass this responsibility on to the government, but we will gain so much more in grace if we do this ourselves. We not only help those who need it, but we help ourselves as well.

    Unfortunately, we are rasing generations of citizens who look to the government for everything. At the same time, we have lost generations to poor catechesis and so our faith is not as central to our lives as it should be. Getting our indivudual lives right with God and rasing the next generation to know their faith and our history will be what brings health care reform. And a reform of our nation back to God.

  23. PrairieHawk Avatar

    I advocate for Catholic-run health insurance cooperatives that would be open to all. Catholic doctors in a given city get together to provide health care at just rates, and they are paid by the insurance cooperative which gets its money from the diocese, Sunday collections, individual donations, and insurance premiums paid by members. Members pay their premiums on a sliding scale based on income. This way charity is the bond that unites everyone, from the poor man who pays nothing to the well-to-do who pay the most. I’m sure there would be problems, as I am no expert in these matters, but this is an idea I’d like to see discussed. I think most people would be happy to join a plan such as this one.

  24. mamreilly Avatar
    mamreilly

    Mary,

    I am a father of five children with a stay-at-home mom who is putting my kids through Catholic schools which takes up a significant part of our take-home income. So, there isn’t a lot of money left over when all the necessities are paid for…

    My son was born 12 weeks premature in a hospital 45 miles away from my home. Over 40 members of my church were praying in adoration the night/morning my son was born. My son had been misdiagnosed by the medical community as having Downs and then Triploid Syndrome before he was born. He stayed in the NICU for 9 weeks before he could come home.

    We don’t have family anywhere close to us, but members of our church and parents of my children’s classmates that we didn’t even know cooked and cleaned and gave us gas cards and watch our kids for those 9 weeks while my wife and I drove daily the 90 mile round trip to visit our son. People who I didn’t even know went to the grocery store and loaded up my fridge until I had to ask them to stop so the food wouldn’t spoil. People I didn’t even know stopped me at the grocery store to ask me if we needed anything.

    People are enormously generous when they’re giving to someone in their church or in their community because they SEE the need. It’s hard to have the same generosity when the money has to go through the government’s hands first and 40% of it is wasted before it can be re-distributed.

    You see, I’ve experienced true Catholic charity first hand and I know that God takes care of those who put their trust in Him, not in any worldly power. It doesn’t always feel like it, but I think it’s a way of really testing how much you really trust Him when you go through things like that.

    In my case, if I hadn’t had health insurance, my son’s entire hospital stay would have been covered by Medicaid according to the state social worker that visited us shortly after our son’s birth. As it was, our insurance covered all but $2000 of the $250,000 bill we rang up and that was all the deductible for my wife’s portion of the expenses.

    A note: No one goes bankrupt paying for basic medical care all by itself. Catastrophic medical care is usually what drives the underinsured or uninsured into bankruptcy. A lot of our self-employed friends carry catastrophic health insurance with large deductibles. But they would be covered if they got cancer, but not if their child needed a tonsilectomy that cost $3-4000. The difference between comprehensive and catastrophic healthcare insurance is about the same ratio as comprehensive auto with a low deductible and liability with a high deductible in the auto insurance industry.

  25. Michael Ricciardelli, J.D Avatar

    First things first, I should point out that contrary to the thoughts of Mr. Jewell, I am not a doctor– the J.D. only qualifies me to practice law, not medicine. That having been said, although I would have certainly preferred an overwhelming response which agreed with my analysis, I am heartened by the many thoughtful comments and the obvious desire amongst you, as both Catholics and Americans, “to do the right thing.” And I am thankful for the opportunity to have offered my point of view. May God bless and keep you well.

    The Catholic Church has for centuries stood at the forefront of administering to the needs of the sick and those less fortunate; now is no different. But it cannot do it alone. I believe the duty resides with us—as both individuals in faith and as a “political community.” We are the government.

    Having said that, I would agree that the institution of a Public Option, functioning as a nonprofit insurer cannot, in and of itself cure all that ails us in regard to health care. The system comprises roughly 1/6 of our GDP and the sheer scope of the dysfunctions will require that the solutions encompass a broad spectrum. We ration now according to wealth. (Father Douglas Clark http://www.usccb.org/healthcare/clark_doug.shtml). Last year the CEO of Aetna, Ronald Williams received total compensation of $24,300,112. That’s $467,309.85 per week. (http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/story/aetnas-ron-williams-ceo-compensation/2009-05-14)

    Much is wrong, but much is also right. The subject is far too large for this response. What my post hoped to accomplish was 1) the establishment of the moral imperative to universal health care under Catholic Social doctrine; 2) the establishment of government as one of many parties responsible to fulfill that duty; 3) establish that the Public Option is not precluded under doctrine for being “socialized medicine;” and 4) establish that in light of our experience with the insufficiencies of the private system, the Public Option, as one of many, is demanded as an appropriate means to accomplish that duty. I don’t seem to have made many inroads on the 4th, but I would hope the first three have been established. If not, perhaps below will help.

    The system, at present, does not reach a great many—despite the vast amount of money spent. At present, the duty is not being fulfilled. Bake sales, although a beautiful response to individual hardship, will not suffice to meet the health care needs of the tens of millions of people without insurance and in need of care. I simply do not understand how an appeal to subsidiarity can be utilized to negate our neighbor’s need for care. I would suggest that the Public Option is Common Subsidiarity: for the needs of those for whom no bake sale is held; for the neighbors you have not met yet; the neighbors in faceless cities who may well die without it.

    I would suggest that the call to personal charity does not preclude a group ordering—especially in light of a “failing health system.” (see below, US Council of Bishops, response to the President’s Health Care Address). The banding together to effectuate the common good is a favored, if not requisite, doctrinal principle (see below: “Do not live entirely isolated, having retreated into yourselves, as if you were already justified, but gather instead to seek the common good together ”). And that a group ordering will not wipe out the ability to perform individual acts of charity. There will still be opportunities for those of good will.

    I would suggest that the democratic decision to collect and effectuate the disbursement of tax dollars to offer health care to those in need does not offend the principles of subsidiarity– or it would seem, the opposition to collectivism (see below, US Council of Bishops, “Health Care Reform, Our Position” (not “necessarily” requiring, but not opposing as “collectivist” a single-payer system.): “Health care is a basic human right. All parts of society need to cooperate to assure this right. One of the basic functions of government is to undertake efforts to promote the common good. This means reform efforts should be in partnership with all stakeholders including employers, charitable organizations, health care providers and government. Health care for all does not necessarily mean support for a single-payer system”).

    But the democratic decision to collect and effectuate the disbursement of tax dollars to offer health care to those in need does help to fulfill the duty we have to each other under Catholic Social Justice doctrine. The sentiments and principles below expressed by the US Council of Bishops regarding Medicaid and CHIP, both tax funded, reinforce that statement.

    We rely upon tax dollars or “socialization” for many of our common needs: roads, bridges, libraries, public universities, military defense, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc…. It is not outlandish to believe that the best way to fulfill a duty to provide health care to those without, is to do so jointly with tax dollars equitably spread.

    That duty to provide health care extends to the “political community” as well as individuals; the governing authority (Which is us! “We the People!”) has, according to the Catechism, “a duty to honor the family, to assist it, and to ensure especially: … –in keeping with the country’s institution’s, the right to medical care, assistance for the aged, and family benefits.” (see below, The Common Good, 1905-1908)

    Issues Related to Coverage of Low-income People in Health Care Reform
    August 2009

    The USCCB has stated that the needs of poor and vulnerable people should be particularly cared for in any health care reform proposals. For low-income people, significant premiums and cost-sharing charges can serve as barriers to obtaining coverage or seeing a doctor. Therefore, Medicaid cost-sharing protections should be maintained
    and new coverage options should protect the lowest income enrollees from burdensome cost sharing. We urge Congress to limit premiums or exempt families earning less than 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level from monthly premiums. The bishops also recommend limiting co-payments and other costs which could discourage needed care. In order to move toward universal coverage, the bishops urge increases in eligibility levels. For example, we urge Congress to maintain at least the proposed minimum national eligibility level for Medicaid at 150 percent and CHIP at 300 percent of the Federal Poverty Level; to ensure comprehensive coverage; and to provide states with the resources to expand coverage. (http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/2009-08-info-related-low-income-healthcare-reform.pdf)

    USCCB Officials Welcome President Obama’s Statements On Abortion, Care For The Poor In Response To Health Care Address

    WASHINGTON—Calling it an important contribution to a crucial national debate, officials speaking on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops welcomed President Obama’s September 9 address on health care reform, particularly his statements regarding abortion and the uninsured.

    “We agree that ‘no one should go broke because they get sick,’” said Kathy Saile, Director of Domestic Social Development at the USCCB. “That’s why the U.S. Bishops have worked for decades for decent health care for all. The Catholic Church provides health care for millions, purchases health care, picks up the pieces of a failing health system, and has a long tradition of teaching on ethics in health care. Health care reform that respects the life and dignity of all is a moral imperative and urgent national priority. We welcome the President’s speech as an important contribution to this essential national debate and task.”

    “We especially welcome the President’s commitment to exclude federal funding of abortion, and to maintain existing federal laws protecting conscience rights in health care,” said Richard Doerflinger, Associate Director of Pro-Life Activities at the USCCB. “We believe that incorporating essential and longstanding federal laws on these issues into any new proposal will strengthen support for health care reform. We will work with Congress and the Administration to ensure that these protections are clearly reflected in new legislation, so no one is required to pay for or take part in abortion as a result of health care reform.”

    “We agree with the President that there are details that need to be ironed out,” said Saile. “And with his address last night, we see the opportunity to work towards a truly universal health policy with respect for human life and dignity, access for all with a special concern for the poor, and inclusion of legal immigrants. We also see the possibility of meeting the bishops’ goal to pursue the common good and preserve pluralism, including freedom of conscience and a variety of options, and restraining costs and applying them equitably across the spectrum of payers.”(http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2009/09-178.shtml)

    Life in Christ, II. The Common Good

    1905 In keeping with the social nature of man, the good of each individual is necessarily related to the common good, which in turn can be defined only in reference to the human person:

    “Do not live entirely isolated, having retreated into yourselves, as if you were already justified, but gather instead to seek the common good together.”

    1906 By common good is to be understood “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.” The common good concerns the life of all. It calls for prudence from each, and even more from those who exercise the office of authority. It consists of three essential elements:

    1907 First, the common good presupposes respect for the person, as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as the “the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard… privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion.

    1908 Second, the common good requires the social well-being and development of the group itself. Development is the epitome of all social duties. Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on. (bold and underline emphasis added).

    Life in Christ, Part Three, Chapter Two, “You Shall Love Your Neighbor As Yourself,” II. The Family And Society

    2211 The political community has a duty to honor the family, to assist it, and to ensure especially:
    … –in keeping with the country’s institution’s, the right to medical care, assistance for the aged, and family benefits. (bold and emphasis added).

    And this below, courtesy of Bixmom, from the Council of Bishops (entirety below)
    (http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/projects/csmg/2009-hill_notes_for_health_care.pdf)

    “Does support for health care for all mean support for a single-payer system?
    Health care is a basic human right. All parts of society need to cooperate to assure this right. One of the basic functions of government is to undertake efforts to promote the common good. This means reform efforts should be in partnership with all stakeholders including employers, charitable organizations, health care providers and government. Health care for all does not necessarily mean support for a single-payer system.” (bold and underline emphasis added).

    I would suggest, as I did above, that this certainly doesn’t preclude a single-payer system, and lends substantial support to the notion that a Public Option, as the government part of the “partnership with all stakeholders, one of “a variety of options,” will attain the “basic human right” of Health Care. Remembering of course, as well outlined below, that the system we have now in place, where access to health care– and life itself– is preconditioned upon wealth–just doesn’t work for tens of millions of Americans —and is unsustainable.

    February 2009
    Health Care Reform
    Our Position
    The Catholic bishops of the United States have advocated for comprehensive health care reform leading to accessible and affordable health care for all for decades. The bishops have consistently insisted that access to decent health care is a basic safeguard of human life and an affirmation of human dignity from conception until natural death. The framework for comprehensive action should 1) ensure health care coverage that protects all human life; 2) provide access for all with a special concern for the poor; 3) respect pluralism, offering a variety of options and ensuring respect for the moral and religious convictions of patients and providers; and, 4) restrain costs while sharing costs equitably.
    Facts about Health Care
    Health care reform is a priority for the nation, new Congress and Administration. This overdue national discussion ought to begin with some basic facts. The fact is 46 million people in the wealthiest and most technologically advanced country in the world lack health care coverage. The fact is that $1 of every $6 spent in the United States is spent on health care. The fact is the United States ranks “near the bottom in healthy life expectancy at age 60” and 15th among 19 nations in deaths that would not have resulted if treated with timely and effective care. The fact is people who are uninsured are twice as likely not to receive follow-up care to an injury or new chronic condition. The fact is nearly one million babies a year do not see the day of their birth as a result of abortion on demand. As a nation this is not morally right… and we can do better.
    Our Experience
    Health care is not just another issue for the Church. It is a fundamental issue of human life and dignity. Health care ministry is one way the Church continues Jesus’ mission of healing and care for the “least of these” (Mt. 25). The Catholic Church provides health care, purchases health care and picks up the pieces of a failing health care system. The Catholic community sees and serves the sick and uninsured in our emergency rooms, shelters and on the doorsteps of our parishes. One out of six patients is cared for in Catholic hospitals. We bring strong convictions and everyday experience to the issue of health care. Our faith requires Catholics to join with others in public debate and to share Catholic teaching and experience in the search for effective health care reform.
    The bishops’ statement, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, stresses that “affordable and accessible health care is an essential safeguard of human life and a fundamental human right.” Catholic teaching calls on society to respect and protect life from the moment of conception until natural death. All people have a right to health care regardless of where they work, where they come from or how much money they have. Quality health care should be accessible to every person as a part of basic respect for human life and dignity.
    ______________________________________________________________________________
    What do the bishops mean by health care for “all”?
    All people need and should have access to comprehensive, quality health care that they can afford. Access to health care should not depend on a person’s stage of life, where or whether one works, how much one earns, where one lives, or where one was born. Health care is a social good, and accessible and affordable health care for everyone benefits both individuals and society as a whole. The moral measure of any health care reform proposal is whether it protects human life and dignity and offers affordable and accessible health care to all.
    Domestic Social Development • 3211 Fourth Street NE • Washington, DC 20017 Telephone: 202-541-3160 • Website: http://www.usccb.org Domestic Social Development • 3211 Fourth Street NE • Washington, DC 20017 Telephone: 202-541-3160 • Website: http://www.usccb.org
    Does support for health care for all mean support for a single-payer system?
    Health care is a basic human right. All parts of society need to cooperate to assure this right. One of the basic functions of government is to undertake efforts to promote the common good. This means reform efforts should be in partnership with all stakeholders including employers, charitable organizations, health care providers and government. Health care for all does not necessarily mean support for a single-payer system.
    If a new health care system were to cover all people, wouldn’t it be too expensive?
    The financial responsibility should be shared by all stakeholders. True reform will restrain overall health costs so that sufficient resources will be available to cover all people without sacrificing quality or accessibility. Reform should create: 1) effective measures to reduce waste, inefficiency, and unnecessary care; 2) measures that control rising costs; and 3) incentives to individuals and providers for effective and economical use of resources.
    A fair health care system assures society’s obligation to finance universal access to comprehensive health care in an equitable fashion, based on ability to pay. Cost-sharing arrangements should avoid creating barriers to effective care for the poor and vulnerable.
    How should health care legislation deal with abortion and other life issues?
    We strongly oppose inclusion of abortion services as part of a national health care benefit. For decades, the Congress has decided not to compel people to pay for abortions with their tax dollars and this policy should remain in place. We would also oppose inclusion of technologies that similarly fail to uphold the sanctity and dignity of life. No health care reform plan that compels us or others to pay for the destruction of human life should (or would) pass Congress and be signed into law. The surest road to defeat for affordable and accessible health care for all is to insist that all Americans must pay for abortion. We urge Congress and the Administration to strengthen, or at least keep in place, the restrictions on federal funding for abortions. In our view, expanding access to health care cannot come at the expense of the lives of unborn children.
    Why should the Catholic community be included in a debate on health care reform?
    The Catholic community offers a moral tradition and vast experience in health care as providers, consumers and employers. The Catholic community provides, pays for, and picks up the pieces of a failed health care system. Last year, Catholic health care hospitals provided health care to one out of six patients in the United States. The Catholic health care system is the largest non-profit health care system in the country.
    Health care reform should continue to ensure respect for religious and ethical values in the delivery of health care for consumers and for individual and institutional providers. All stakeholders should have access to a health care system that respects their moral and ethical beliefs.
    What role should prevention have in health care reform?
    One priority goal of a health care system should be maintaining good health and offering preventative care. Maintaining good health is the responsibility of individuals as well as health professionals. Improving health education and literacy will help patients play a greater role in their health care. Incentives for healthy nutrition and exercise should also be included.
    For more information:
    Contact Kathy Saile, Domestic Social Development/USCCB, 202-541-3134 or ksaile@usccb.org

  26. Kathryn Avatar
    Kathryn

    Again I ask Mr. Ricciardelli, Where does gov’t run anything work in the real world? Medicare is going broke. As is Medicaid. And the postal system. And the education system. And the parks system. And yes, rationing is coming no matter what we do about it–it just depends on how much and who decides whom gets what.

    If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work. All the appealing to the CCC, USSCB reports, various encylicals and Catholic Social doctrine–where there is a fair amount of wiggle room(please see Thomas Woods very interesting “The Church and the The Market, A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy” for more info)–won’t make it work.

  27. m7wij Avatar
    m7wij

    Mr. Ricciardelli,

    Let us look again at Part Three, Life in Christ, Article 3, Social Justice, Section I, “Respect for the Human Person.”
    1930 Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy.[3] If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects….
    As well, we must examine Part Three, Life in Christ, Article 3, Social Justice, Section II, “Equality and Differences Among Men.”
    1936 On coming into the world, man is not equipped with everything he needs for developing his bodily and spiritual life. He needs others. Differences appear tied to age, physical abilities, intellectual or moral aptitudes, the benefits derived from social commerce, and the distribution of wealth.[1] The “talents” are not distributed equally.[2]
    The Obama administration, and the president in particular, has demonstrated abject indifference (love’s opposite) toward the unborn, thereby completely disregarding “respect for the rights that flow from [one’s] dignity as a [human] creature,” which rights “are prior to society and must be recognized by it.” In fact, not only does Obama recognize those rights, he intentionally supports legislation denying them in the case of the unborn, and that encourages people to end their lives prematurely, and quite unnaturally, in direct contradiction to Christ’s teaching, with respect to the infirm, who suffer from chronic illnesses. Thus, he and his henchmen abuse their authority, and arrogantly undermine that very authority. In fact, they “rely only on force (vilifying those who oppose them, or violence (condemning to death the unwanted) to obtain obedience from their subjects.”
    “On coming into the world…” is not an option for the millions of aborted fetuses. With regard to the euthanized elderly, and/or terminally ill: “Differences appear tied to age, physical abilities, intellectual or moral aptitudes, the benefits [prolonged life] derived from social commerce and distribution of wealth.” Obama has no intention of distributing “talents” equally. He DOES intend to redistribute wealth, and to acquire as much wealth for his government machinery as he can. However, he will take it from his apathetic or opposition, to give it to his supporters. In fact, he will encourage the apathetic to come over to his way of thinking, and he will attempt to further marginalize those who oppose him, so that he can consolidate his power, and deliver unto us an inequitable healthcare system that will be managed by the very organization least capable of making moral determinations for the common good, i.e., the federal government. Bureaucracy of the central government is least efficient at providing and distributing any service or commodity. Moreover, it is by its very nature a sump into which is siphoned the vast wealth of capitalism, leaving behind a now estimated trillion dollar deficit by the second decade of this ill-conceived health care delivery plan. Good intentions cannot make his “public option” the best plan, only good works will provide for the needs of the underprivileged. He is promising to deliver change for its own sake, and with it taking away all hope for the most vulnerable among us. His plan cannot be supported much less sustained.

  28. Warren Jewell Avatar
    Warren Jewell

    Of subsidiarity, and as contrasted to the ‘big’-national approach to supporting health care (and, with more than government, etc., can offer – supporting the whole family in prayers, a full pantry, baby-sitting, etc.) we can see that we must think in terms of giving and accepting. For one subtle thing, to accept others’ help is to also give support to them in their Christian charity and duties.

    The ‘bigs’ are not likely to – in government, not able to – just plain ‘give’. Government by itself has nothing to give. These ‘big’ entities depend upon coercion via taxes (deficit spending, inflation, etc., to multiply bogeymen) and the like (say, of a private ‘big’ entity, enforced United Way efforts). Hence, they do not give so much as take and re-distribute. Being ‘big’ too, harbors its own inefficiencies and openness to fraud, favoritism and nepotism. Subsidiarity’s local scales minimizes such flaws.

    In the comments above are examples of communities going to the wall with those in need. It is quite representative of common folk encountering someone in misfortune, for the heart has ways the head just cannot understand. Subsidiarity thrives on this human nature to give to others’ needs. A more wide-scale example has the Katrina hurricane disaster causing so much charity, there are still available funds, and stores of supplies still not given. Mother Teresa found that the very poor will help other even more unfortunate poor if they are offered the chance to do so. That widow’s giving of her mite is repeated probably thousands of times a day. Subsidiariy, then, depends upon letting all and sundry know of need, and, then, get out of the way! This is why begging is important; it is first step in accepting what others give. As Christianity, especially Catholicism, is ‘here comes everybody’, when everybody responds, the giving can overwhelm the needs!

    As an aside about how ‘big’ distorts what would be charity, notice that donations even to ‘big’ Catholic charities decline as the charities get so ‘big’ as to think to ignore the full of Catholic social teachings. Submitting to secularist notions, even supporting abortion, they cause the pew dwellers to perceive that such entities have abandoned some of the vital ways of charity. Being ‘big’, they cause who would give to wonder just what they are giving to.

    Praise God in His people. Subsidiarity is plain, simple and open plan to give God His glory in giving to His needy children. Of all means of charity, it is most efficaciously and edifyingly along the way of His cross leading us with our crosses, and on that narrow path to glory. And on our way with our crosses, keeping a close eye for our Savior’s steps, watch how many crosses go down, laid down to help another who stumbles, and needs.

  29. Kathryn Avatar
    Kathryn

    I wanted to responde to PrairieHawk’s advocacy of a Catholic run insurance. Way to go. (Although here in MI, they are trying to mandate contraception coverage and the like in all insurance.)

    This is an area I think the Protestants have been way ahead of us. There are at least two not-exactly-insurance cooperatives (one of Samaritan ministries) where subscribers help each other pay for their medical bills. I have yet to totally understand how it works, but then, I haven’t spent much time on their website. They advertise a lot in the Homeschool Legal Defense Assoc. magazine. I thought that if we had ever lost our insurance (which would not surprise me in the next few years) we would check them out further as one idea to help manage any expenses we might have…and help others manage there expenses as well. (Bonus: subscribers are expected to pray for other members.)

    It would be nice if there were a solic Catholic version of that.

    In answer to Mary’s question on who should pay for the aforementioned family suffering grave bills: Our parish had a benefit dinner once for a member who had grave medical bills. Our preschool has had a few people with issues and a collection is always taken up. It is not at all unusual to see flyers up in our town for a benefit dinner for someone to help with medical bills (or college funds for kids who parents have died, etc).

    It does get increasingly difficult to help other people though when it seems that the Powers That Be are after your wallet.

    Here in MI, we have a very distressed economy (partly due to automotive issues, but there are other matters) and our gov’t is about 2 billion in debt, I believe. We had a major tax hike on businesses a couple of years ago, and lo and behold, some businesses went out of business or relocated out of state. Many special interest groups, including the Michigan Catholic Conference, is aggressively lobbying our State capital so that social services not be cut, but that seems extremely unrealistic to me. Where is the money to come from? People are leaving our state in droves, fewer children are being born. We have a high unemployment rate. And the governor is proposing more taxes. Well, the more taxes I pay–and I have no choice but to pay them–the less I have to be charitable to others OR to pay for the goods and services I want…which helps to keep people employed.

  30. m7wij Avatar
    m7wij

    I might add some of my favorite quotes from Blessed Mother Teresa that help me when I provide medical care in the bureaucratic government healthcare system that rations care:

    “Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat.”
    Mother Teresa

    “Do not think that love, in order to be genuine, has to be extraordinary. What we need is to love without getting tired.”
    Mother Teresa

    “Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person.”
    Mother Teresa

    “Each one of them is Jesus in disguise.”
    Mother Teresa

    Her blessed example buoys me against the anchor of government controlled health care. I have long ago lost count of the hours lost to me and my family, as I toiled to correct the wrongs of this woefully inefficient, impersonal and unfair system. Rhetoric cannot set the record strait.

  31. quiz1 Avatar
    quiz1

    My biggest fear and heartache about the Catholic response to the times we live in, and with this adminstration in particular, is that many Catholics are unable to read the signs of these times Mt 16:3-4.

  32. Mary Kochan Avatar
    Mary Kochan

    I fnd it interesting that no one questioned my scenario when I said that the family could not pay for the medical care needed. The assumption all around is that it is ok for a family to go into 6 figure debt for a house, but not to pay medical bills.

    Also no one suggested that he cash out his retirement savings or 401K, if he has one, to pay for the medical treatment. No one said they should sell their home and move in with relatives somewhere. No one suggested that the first rung of the subsidiarity ladder should be their own extended family.

    I also live in a community where people help each other as was mentioned, but as the author pointed out, many, many people do not.

    It seems that this medical care problem is not even a medical care problem at root. It is a family-fragmentation problem.

  33. bambushka Avatar
    bambushka

    Obama has said he will own this healthcare reform.

    Obama has promised abortion for all.

    The Hyde admendment has to be voted in each and every year. The Democrats have the majority. They have a platform that is abortion friendly. Many of the Catholics in Congress and the White House have high if not perfect ratings by NARAL.

    How can the bishops or lay Catholics think that abortion will not be in any healthcare package?

  34. Warren Jewell Avatar
    Warren Jewell

    Thank you for your detailed response, Mr. (if you insist) Ricciardi. To me, a doctorate in law (etc.) still provides recognizing the recipient with the distinction and title of ‘Doctor’.

    Now, permit me to copy your response out to my word processor to parse and research, for some while.

    I think that my prior comment to this would demonstrate that I would not so diminish common subsidiarity just because of volumes of those in need. We would just then need organized volumes of exposing needs to givers.

    And, at first glance, I do not see reference to the responsibilities of the needy for being primary caretakers of their own health. Indeed, that seems to be a common thread missing in much of the current discussion; that these folk are just too unable in every respect, even their own basic health upkeep. The needy cannot be viewed as totally helpless. Their too-minimal ability to pay for their health care needs cannot be viewed as cause for falling into dependencies upon others to be responsible for their detailed health care needs across their whole lives. For instance, how is it so many of them can afford to smoke, take street drugs and drink too much alcohol, to their declining health, but for one thing cannot pay for their own health care? Preventive care is no substitute for caring for one’s own (and familial) personal hygiene, which I consider more likely to come out of some root of subsidiarity than only from some eventual health care provider.

    Still, this is a formidably complex issue. I must take some time . . .

  35. mamreilly Avatar
    mamreilly

    Questions:

    If there is a universal right to health care, what does that mean?

    Does our obligation end at the borders of the United States? Shouldn’t our obligation extend to all those in the world, wanted and unwanted, both within and outside our borders?

    We are in a culture that worships HEALTH, not God. We think that someone who is “unhealthy” is less worthy of the inherent dignity given to a child of God. We are so much more than our health.

    We are in a culture that devalues the worth of the dying, disabled, deficient and unwanted. We don’t want to be bothered with them, we want to prevent them from being born (Downs), we want to euthanize them out of their pain and suffering through “mercy” killings. We want PERFECTION, but we don’t know what being PERFECT is.

    This universal healthcare is like the Tower of Babel story. We think that we are like God and want to create this massive monument to ourselves and pound our chest with moral superiority that WE have solved the problem. We think that WE DON’T NEED GOD. We just need the government. We don’t turn to Him in our need. We turn to our munificent government for our needs. They’re better at it than God.

    No, as Mother Teresa said – God loves small things. Drops in the ocean. Tiny personal acts.

    She asked a public official once who asked her if she was going to take care of the million sick and dying in Calcutta. She asked him “Sir, how do you count to a million?” He didn’t understand the question. She said, “One, two, three…”

    We don’t want that. It’s TOO hard. We want instant microwaved results. We just want to take a trillion dollars (or more) and package it up with universal access (and mandate) to birth control, abortion, and death control.

    God asks us to to live our lives perfectly, not to try to make our lives perfect by satisfying our every need and want. He wants us to need and want Him. And we do that through suffering. Our lives are NOT meant to be PERFECT.

    This plan is evil and you are trying to package it as good because it might have some good consequences. That’s all it takes for people to ignore the evil that comes with it.

    One more thing – you think that some CEO of a health insurance company making $24,000,000 a year is evil? Or is it just unfair? What about entertainers and sports athletes making $5-$200 million per year? What about Oprah making $200,000,000 per year? Or Bill Gates, making billions every year and holding on to $60 billion in net worth?

    What about China? They have universal health care here and yet, yesterday, I saw a mother holding her sick child while eating out of a trash can at a train station. 98% of the wealth in China is controlled by 1% of the population. The government provides “everything” and controls everything. When you step out of line and decide to have a 2nd child, if the child isn’t forcibly aborted prior to birth, the mother is forcibly sterilized to prevent future infractions.

    Don’t think that could happen in the US? Go ahead. Push your Tower of Babel, Mr. Ricciardelli.

  36. wgsullivan Avatar
    wgsullivan

    Not to mention the amendments explicitly denying abortion funding being defeated while this bill and other forms were in committee.
    I smell a rat or two.

  37. Kathryn Avatar
    Kathryn

    Mary, you tricked us! Good points. I remember reading, and I wish I could remember where, about how extended family breakdown has been in large part responsible for people looking to the gov’t. The extended family was a kind of “insurance”–I remember the author using that word–it “insured against risk”. But we no longer have extended families. I wish I remember where I saw that article. I think it was in the Hillsdale college magazine Imprimis.

    Something occured to me.

    The USCCB is calling health care a “right”. So then, does the Church have to right or perhaps the responsibility to demand of its own members–the people in the pews–to join in some kind of Institutional Church-run Catholic Insurance program as a condition of membership? Rich, poor, doesn’t matter–everyone pitches in, no preexisting conditions exclusions, etc. It does not matter if your employer also offers insurance–you must buy into the Church’s insurance program if you want to be a parish member and enjoy parish membership “priviledges” (funerals, weddings, etc.)

    Question: does the Church have the right to demand that? Since the Church has a difficult time keep pro-abortion politicians away from the communion line, I am not altogether sure how they would enforce such a demand, but do they have the right to demand it anyway?

    Assuming the Church has no right to demand that of her own members, then does the Church have the right to lobby for a tax payer funded “public option,” espcially since many people who will pay for it are not Church members and may have radically different views on taxes and health care and social responsibility, etc.

    Consider what this public option means: you are required under threat of violence to pay taxes to fund someone else’s health care, and they are required to pay taxes for yours, again under threat of “violence”. Remember: gov’t is the only institution we allow to use violence against us. If we do not pay our taxes, we are summoned to court. If we refuse to go to court, the police come to get us. If we run, they are permitted to shoot at us. If we really resist, the police officer may end up killing us, and it would not be considered murder.

  38. mamreilly Avatar
    mamreilly

    Mary,

    Wow. Didn’t see the path you were going down.

    Those are some pretty radical thoughts in this day and age.

    🙂

  39. Madeline Avatar

    I don’t know…maybe I’m simple minded because this is how it seems to me:
    yes, the poor need to be taken care of. I’ve been poor, I’ve been…ok…never rich. Right now my husband and I are forced to pay for horrible health insurance(that also services for the government and they seem to have the corner on most health care contracts in my state) that doesn’t cover anything practically, half the local doctors wont take and has a huge co-pay. We pay something like 10 thousand a year for this luxury. I just wish we were allowed to take that 10 K and put it into a medical savings account and use half toward catastrophic health insurance, the other half for little things like check ups and broken bones. I thought there were laws against monopoly’s, yet these big health insurance companies are sweeping away all competition and are in the governments pocket through and through.

    I just don’t see how the poor will be served. What will happen to big charity hospitals like St. Jude’s, the Shriner’s and others?.

    Government regulation and interference forces us to buy a bad product.I know, I’m all over the place with this.

    I don’t want socialized medicine. Socialized medicine means enslaving all the doctors and nurses, or squeezing out the God fearing good ones and putting agents of the state in who will be willing to answer only to the government, and the government we have now IS filled with the Culture of death. It means making them agents of the state. And it’s very personal. Would you go to an IRS agent for a pap smear, or anal exam, or even advice for a fussy baby??? I went to government clinics when my kids were small. I hated them. The Dr.s and nurses were all suspicious and treated everyone like a potential child abuser. If I had a real concern, I never felt I could confide in them, ever.

    If Obama care goes through, I would simply go underground with my health care needs. I would never go to a government agent for my very private health care needs. What good are HYPPA laws with this set up anyway? And I Would find a way to help other people find a way to get away from it. And I certainly would not go to a government agent OB-gyn…ever.

    WHY should I? They may force me to pay for it, but if I ever have another baby, and when my daughters start having children, and Obama care is in place, I’m looking for a black market midwife, staying well away from government hospitals.

    It’s about freedom.
    That’s my take on it.

  40. jmtfh Avatar
    jmtfh

    To those of you who PROPOSED THE IDEA of the “alternative Catholic-based” non-really-insurance-option, like Protestants already have done.

    My spouse worked for the Church and they did not–and do not–provide health insurance–or even a living wage so the mother can be home to raise/home educate her children.

    We lived at or below the poverty level for YEARS just so I could be home to raise our young kids! We went without health insurance for 22 years, having decided we could budget for only 2 of these 3: rent, health insurance, and/or our tithe. We chose rent and to tithe.

    Finally with after 4 children and 3 miscarriages, we paid into the Christian Brotherhood Newsletter for 4-5 years. They did not cover much, people were very slow in “paying” for our bills when it was us in need, and it all eventually folded due to rising costs, etc.

    What makes ANYONE believe that even a Catholic run health care insurance would be any better?!?

    I have had a number of horrendous experiences at Catholic hospitals–one occurred just 2 weeks ago in a Catholic hospital considered to be one of the top 10 hospitals in the nation!

    No–a much more profound change needs to happen…

  41. bixmom Avatar
    bixmom

    Let’s go back to this Q and A from the USCCB for a minute:

    “Q. Does support for health care for all mean support for a single-payer system?

    A. Health care is a basic human right. All parts of society need to cooperate to assure this right. One of the basic functions of government is to undertake efforts to promote the common good. This means reform efforts should be in partnership with all stakeholders including employers, charitable organizations, health care providers and government. Health care for all does not necessarily mean support for a single-payer system.”

    Please note the part where it says “All parts of society need to *cooperate* to assure this right.” Many proponents of the public option are saying that they want private organizations to *compete* with the gov’t, not cooperate. If they want to see market-driven competition, they will allow private insurance companies to compete across state lines. Limiting our choice our by state has lead to the formation of monopolies in too many areas. If they want to cooperate, the gov’t will offer health care to the 20% that does not have health care or has been unfairly treated, etc. while reforming to ensure that no one can be dropped or denied, etc. and allow the companies to truly compete like the life insurance and car insurance companies do.

    Also keep in mind that in many circles, if someone says that they’d like to see health care for all or “universal health care”, that tends to be interpreted as support for the public option. I think that the USCCB is clarifying that there are those who are in support of everyone having health care who *do not* support a public option. It’s not simply one way or the other and that’s what I think they mean by that last sentence in the above quote. (“Health care for all does not necessarily mean support for a single-payer system.”)

  42. bixmom Avatar
    bixmom

    I need to clarify my previous comment:

    <<Also keep in mind that in many circles, if someone says that they’d like to see health care for all or “universal health care”, that tends to be interpreted as support for the public option and/or a single-payer system. I think that the USCCB is clarifying that there are those who are in support of everyone having health care who *do not* support the single-payer system . It’s not simply one way or the other and that’s what I think they mean by that last sentence in the above quote. (”Health care for all does not necessarily mean support for a single-payer system.”)

  43. Madeline Avatar

    It seems to me that government and insurance company monopoly along with terrible malpractice rates push prices too high. Why is it cheaper to take my dogs to the vet then for me to get my kids shots? It’s even cheaper to go to the dentist…because most dentists still have to get money directly from the patient.

    m~

  44. goral Avatar
    goral

    “The same week, the 15-year old son, attempting to help his dad by cleaning the gutter for him, falls from the ladder and smashes the side of his head on a brick planter. He has a broken jaw, and damage both internal and external to one ear that requires surgery.”

    I will accept the formidable challenge of attempting to “answer” Mary’s above question.
    That well meaning and inept 15-year old son is Obama. The boy had little experience in ladder climbing or gutter cleaning. The family (country) faces bigger problems. The youngster should have been tending to problems on the ground and not in the air.
    The mother (Church – USCCB) should have kept a level head and told the “boy”
    not to jeopardize a planter that serves it’s function very well.

    For at least a generation now many of our mother and father bishops have been looking the other way and in many cases sanctioning irresponsible behavior.
    They have been on the wrong side of policy debates. Supporting the very politicians who have promoted the culture of death. We just said good riddance to one of their favorite’s
    They need to work on their credibility before we the faithful subscribe to their recommendations.
    A Catholic insurance syndicate is a splendid idea. It would require more enterprising persons than the crop that is out there. If Mother Angelica could launch it and Fr. Corapi administer it, it would surely work.

    My brother-in-law was given no financial consideration at St. Mary’s hospital because he’s white and self-employed. In practice our church institutions are every bit as unreliable as the gov’t counterparts. It’s no surprise that they endorse each other.

    Obama is the 15-year old boy who is climbing the social ladder for his own reasons and purposes. The USCCB does not have the wisdom of Wilson to know that they are lies. Even if what he said was true it would eventually end up in the hands of bureaucrats who have no accountability to anyone but the letter of faceless law.

    Mr. Ricciardelli is light headed in his thinking, assessment and resolution to the healthcare problem. It is a problem, the solution is to give us affordable coverage’s that we can purchase privately as individuals or groups. Take all the money sucking intermediaries out of it.
    Apart from that the ailing father must die as will all of those who will “patiently” be waiting for the gov’t system to come to their aid.

    Obama’s ladder will come down and take out the whole flower bed.
    Mother Mary and all of us sensible neighbors, don’t let him do it.

  45. m7wij Avatar
    m7wij

    Mary,

    I’ll tell you how the current administration plans to handle this scenario. There is a mandatory committee that will counsel the father to allow early termination of his life to end his suffering. That should save several hundred thousand dollars over the remainder of his life under our current system of medical care. No, keeping him alive would cost the family its home, which the government would take and sell to help pay for his hospital and nursing home care. Obama would provide the family welfare, which his administration is bringing back, and I haven’t seen a price tag on that, yet. We all pay.

    In both the current system, and that system proposed by the democrats, we all pay. Insurance does not relieve us of that obligation, nor its reality. However, in the proposed system, human life is a commodity that has a dollar value. When one is no longer able to contribute, everything that one owns is taken by the government to help pay, and life is ended prematurely, quite unnaturally, not so much to alleviate suffering of the stricken, but to save money at risk of being lost by one’s savior, the federal government. Where is God in all this?

    Now, what if the mother of five suddenly found herself pregnant, not so outlandish, since recently things in their lives had presumably been going rather well? Our Planned Parenthood approach to health care would descend upon her with bullying to abort. Again, saves money. Furthermore, what woman, in her right mind, could possibly WANT or AFFORD a child under her hypothetical current circumstances? She would not only be encouraged to have an abortion, some abortion clinics would pressure her into the heinous act, and at the most vulnerable period in which she finds herself having to decide. Signing a consent is so “easy;” and “it won’t hurt a bit;” and “it is very safe;” and finally, “it will solve your problems!” Really, they genuinely want to help.

    Fr. David A. Bosnich describes The Principle of Subsidiarity in his article published by the Acton Institute: “One of the key principles of Catholic social thought is known as the principle of subsidiarity. This tenet holds that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization. In other words, any activity which can be performed by a more decentralized entity should be. This principle is a bulwark of limited government and personal freedom. It conflicts with the passion for centralization and bureaucracy characteristic of the Welfare State.”

    In his very next paragraph he writes, “This is why Pope John Paul II took the ‘social assistance state’ to task in his 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus. The Pontiff wrote that the Welfare State was contradicting the principle of subsidiarity by intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility. This ‘leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.’”

    Finally, his third: “In spite of this clear warning, the United States Catholic Bishops remain staunch defenders of a statist approach to social problems. They have publicly criticized recent congressional efforts to reform the welfare system by decentralizing it and removing its perverse incentives. Their opposition to the Clinton Administration’s health care plan was based solely upon its inclusion of abortion funding. They had no fundamental objection to a takeover of the health care industry by the federal government.”

    So, the USCCB remains largely silent in its “opposition” to the current administration’s plans. Token opposition to abortion, notwithstanding. After all, can’t we all just agree to disagree? Pope John Paul II, is no longer with us to eloquently preach against Obama government’s attempts at subterfuge. But he will intervene on our behalf, if only we will ask.

    Reference: http://www.acton.org/publications/randl/rl_article_200.php

  46. bullockfamily2003 Avatar
    bullockfamily2003

    The Catechism deals with people, not governments.

    When it comes to health care, the people with the “talent” to provide are the Doctors, the Nurses, the Paramedics, and other people who make up our health care system. The Government doesn’t have these “talents”.

    Without a precedent, we might very well be able to say that the Catechism is calling the U. S. Government to action. But recent and not-so-recent Government run programs beg to differ.

    The USRA, which was a social program that ran America’s railroads during World War I may have actually driven the railroads into bankruptcy. The Veterans’ Administration currently has a health care program for Veterans, but few ex-military people would call it a well-run system, with its waiting lists and miles of red tape.

    The care itself is not an issue. America has one of the best, if not the best health care systems on Earth. The sheer numbers of people who travel here from other countries to receive treatment shows that. The real issue is the higher costs that put proper care out of the reach of those who lack the funds.

    That’s where people with talents can, and often do step in and help. Danny Thomas used his money to build the children’s Cancer treatment facility known as St. Jude, which never expects payment for their services. Some Doctors have even been doing pro bono work for those who can’t afford it.

    There’s more to do, but it isn’t like people haven’t been doing something.

    No nation has ever made a complete success of socialism, and “healthcare reform” is just another form of it.

  47. patti44 Avatar
    patti44

    Yes to charity from us as individuals and from the churches as a whole. Instead of building with millions of dollars for another church, is there not a way to keep costs down? Cannot some of the art work be sold for money to help the poor? Why does the government have to take it from us which is also taking our free will I might add which is against God’s design for us. Father Corapi calls Socialsim evil for several reasons-one is because it takes our rights away. And in our current time with this new world thought of over population which leads to taking innocent lives and ending lives too soon, how can that be justifued in any way? The ends do not justify the means. I personally do not sacrifice enough nor fast enough so I am praying I can improve in this and offer up what I can in a way that will also help others by my prayerful intentions-with God all of this can be worked out-without God we will fail.

  48. bullockfamily2003 Avatar
    bullockfamily2003

    Be careful about requesting the Church sell artworks. patti44 has the right idea, but if there’s artwork in a church, it might be blessed, and blessed things cannot be sold. Even if it’s not blessed, it might be a gift from one of the faithful, and those things also cannot be sold.

    I do agree, however, that it’s far better to maintain an existing church than build new ones while old ones are being closed left and right.

    The same rules apply to the Vatican art collection, and we need to realize that. Also, bear in mind that similar arguments were made during the reformation, by Protestants attempting to discredit the Holy See.

    A popular artwork during the Reformation showed the Holy Father in his finery, and a picture of Jesus dressed in the robes of a poor carpenter, and argued that the Catholic Church was based on hypocrisy, because Jesus Himself was a poor carpenter, while His representative on Earth was a “wealthy man” who lived in a palace in Rome.

    What the Reformers missed here, possibly deliberately, is that Jesus humbled Himself to become human to save us. His human form was a huge sacrifice for God the Son to have made in the first place. He may have presented the image of a poor carpenter, bur even then His true form was one more powerful than any Pope. He chose to suffer humiliation and death for our sake.

    A century ago, it wasn’t uncommon for large Catholic Families with low incomes to still give all of their extra money to the Church. Those artworks represent their sacrifices. Selling those artworks would be selling their sacrifices.

    Charity could, however, take the form of the Church calling on healthcare professionals in their various parishes to give what they can of their time for those less fortunate.

    We also need to bear in mind, in this age when America is polarized like never before in terms of politics, that the intent of the Framers of the Constitution was “self rule”, and they considered religious freedom to be integral to this self rule, but not for the reasons many people think of today.

    In an age when many Protestant countries imposed religion on the people, it was felt that if a person was free to worship the God of their choice, they would be far more likely to obey the teachings of that faith, and that, in turn, would give them the self-discipline needed to successfully govern themselves.

    Religious freedom, then, is a Protestant concept, but it still applies to American Catholics in the sense that we need to draw from our faith to know right from wrong. It has been argued in another post that we need to obey civil authorities, because their power comes from God.

    In this regard, I would caution that America is a unique entity, founded on the premise that a Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. No other nation, before or since, was founded on this premise. Therefore, in America, God actually works through private citizens, in the form of free elections, to grant power to people in authority. We are His go-betweens, and that gives us not only the right, but also the duty, to monitor our leaders, and if they act in an unlawful manner, we must call them on it.

  49. MICHAEL Avatar
    MICHAEL

    There is no doubt that as Catholics we are called to love our neighbors and care for their needs. There is no doubt that a socially just healthcare system is something that Catholics should be striving to achieve. But, how we get there; the debate over whether it is best for a government run plan, private plans or some combination in my mind is not part of the debate from a Catholic perspective. If we agree that access to healthcare is a right and something as Catholics that we should strive towrad for all our citziens, the debate on how we get there is in teh realm of politics. That does not mean Catholics excuse themselves from this debate, but I feel we take part in it as citiznes. To somehow accuse a Catholic that they are not following the principles of social justice as outlined in the CCC is wrong and in fact no charitable. A Catholic in good conscience can reach the conclusion for many reasons that a public option is good or bad. What is important to me is what is in your heart-that you know it is our call to bring justice for all people and adequte healthcare to all our citzines. We can argue and disagree on how best to accomplish it.
    Now to Mary’s specific scenario, I come from the school of why throw the baby out with the bath water. Yes, there are many flaws with our present systme, but can these not be fixed. Why will we be spending millions or perhaps billions for a new system when the old one might be able to be fixed. In your scenario, the primary bread winner loses his job and health benefits. Why acn’t we devlop a saftey net much like unemployment where in circumstance like this, the family immediately becomes eligible for state Medicaid or perhaps have the state pick up the COBRA payments. Yes, I understand that Medicaid has an income test, but perhaps a catostrophic coverage plan can be initited. The point I’m trying to make is that there are a number of ways and solutions, but again in my mind these are specifics and have nothing to do with social justice Catholic doctrine.

  50. saintstephen Avatar
    saintstephen

    arren, I hereby submit the following amendment to be considered for vote in both the House and the Senate of the USA.

    1. When, in the course of human events it becomes evident that the free enterprise system and the free markets which comprise it are obviously taking advantage of all their clients through excessively high health insurance premiums, denial of service for pre-existing conditions, dropping coverage when expenses exceed a pre-determined cap, requiring excessive percentages of co-payment, and refusal and denial of payments to health providers as agreed by contract for services rendered, it altogether comprises a state within the free market of black market frauds and intention to rip off the American public.

    Therefore it is proposed that:

    1. We the people empower and agree that the legislature of this great nation enact laws which monitor and prevent abuses of the Health Insurance Industry against the American peoples by limiting their ability to further defraud policy holders through manipulation of premiums and services.

    2. We the people empower and agree that the legislature of this great nation enact a full scale and massive program of direct payments to Health Care Providers thus eliminating completely and dramatically third party discretionary and flagrant pilfering of the Health Care System.

    3. That any and all Health Insurance Company unwilling to be held accountable to the American Consumer and the Health Care Facilities and Providers be herewith and immediately stripped of all legal right to operate on the soil of this great country or any of it’s subsidiaries and disbanded and sold at auction, the proceeds of which will be distributed in a par for par payment to all clients.

    4. All efforts of the American people and the Legislature of this government to protect the American consumer from fraud shall heretofore be called “patriotism” and all further mention of Obama-adoration shall cease from our language out of respect for the dead and the living; with a moment of silence for all those wealthy and poor Americans whose health care bills were left unpaid and treatment payments denied and insurance coverage denied. [here bugle plays for the cause of Americans]

    I call on the Congress of the United States of America to vote unanimously on behalf of the American people to amend this provision to our Constitution so as to halt forevermore further Insurance Fraud Schemes and Fraud Institutions within the Health Industry.

    Submitted this 13th Day in the Year of Our Lord 2009

    By the right Honorable Saint Stephen
    Poster on the Catholic Exchange.

  51. jschmeidler Avatar
    jschmeidler

    Sir,

    Catholic doctrine is that which you have stated. However, you have failed to understand the doctrines that you quote. You have confused private, personal, doctrine, which Jesus professed, with public doctrine, which is mandated by govermments. I, and you, are not saved by the public doctrine, which is predicated by the disobedience or such, by civil penaly, or by the criminal penalty, of imprisonment, but we may be saved by recognizing our “personal responsibilities.”

    To carry your arguments to the extreme,
    Adolph Hitler was correct, to the extreme, in doing what he, as a legitimatge government, did. Do you really think that? Are you extreme? Do you really think that such actions are what the Church, or any legitimate government can do?

    Human beings have, as their God given right, to rule themselves. I would suppose that you hypothesize that you should have a right to take that diginity away, and grant those right to governments. You are Wrong!!!!

    I am most regretful that you have presupposed God’s commandments. I am appalled that you have put a “J.D.,” behind your name, assuming, that the readers of you selective reading of scripture, would think that you know what you’re talking about. You don’t.

    That is what the Church teaches.

  52. Tarheel Avatar
    Tarheel

    The health care issue is a very “hot topic” for everyone. And my greatest concern is that too much of this program is being designed and written by individuals whose moral values I question. (I wanted to say they are a bunch of immoral dolts.)

    But affordable health care is this country is non-existent. Medical and prescription costs are completely out-of-hand. Should we not at some point in time try to determine why costs are so high? Because right now I feel that any government ran or managed health care will still be expensive.

    There are an enormous number of issues that need to be explained before I can really support a ‘public option’. I have trouble with any hospital being required to perform any procedure they do not believe in. Or require doctors to prescribe contraceptive medications.

    Our government has not yet proved that it can managed any program that supports the public without it going broke. So why do they think they can managed health care. I fear that the only people that will benefit from such a program will be insurance companies and hospitals conglomerates. And of course the bigger HMO’s.

    Our best “public option” now is to make sure that we tell our elected officials how we fell about this volatile issue. Because I assure that if any program like this is passed no one in Congress will participate in it. And with that thought in mind why should they care what is passed, unless we the voters “flex our muscle” and tell them how we feel.

    And we as voters need to make sure we all stay informed on this issue. Information on site like Catholic Exchange do provide a different perspective on this issue that is most beneficial. We cannot rely on what is on the news or in a lot of print media.

    Thank you CE for posting the article by Michael Ricciardelli, J.D. I may not agree with him, but I respect his views and how it may or may not affect Church teaching. And the responses here clearly show that everyone of us have strong concerns on this subject.

Leave a Reply