The health care debate in the United States is rapidly devolving into the same type of shouting match that marks all too much of contemporary political discourse. Those opposed to any change in health care see more socialists than Joe McCarthy could find on May Day in Moscow. Meanwhile proponents in charge of crafting the proposals appear to be willing to sacrifice the whole package rather than yield any ground on their agenda issues such as publicly funded abortion.
In his letter of August 11, Cardinal Rigali restated the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) long standing support for health care reform with the requirement that such reform must include provisions that protect life from conception to natural death and provide for freedom of conscience for health care workers.
I support the bishops in their stance and recognize that with 50 million Americans uninsured the need for health care reform is apparent. However, I was intrigued by an editorial in The Tablet which examined the question and brought to mind that the institution of National Health Service in the UK came about without the support of Catholic bishops for similar reasons as face the church in the US. The editorial laments the bishops failure "...to put the promotion of social justice above their churchly priorities," and views that as a mistake.
The times and situations are different, however the editorial is worth reading. At least it is more reasoned and less polemic than what we are hearing in most of the US.
2 years ago
Posts
All right, Chick, just to let you know I'm reading your blog...Let me offer my take on the healthcare debate (did you notice the terminology employed by the White House has shifted from "healthcare" crisis to "health insurance" crisis?). I will do so briefly because it is almost 9:30 and time for me to go to bed. Some thoughts: Thought #1. Parse that "50 million uninsured." It used to be 47 million; before that it was 43 million. Perhaps the problem is growing; perhaps hyperbole is growing. Also, who is in the large number? Some who qualify for Medicaid but fail to avail themselves of it; some who are not citizens and are undocumented which entails another large discussion; those who choose not to have insurance because they are young, healthy or are foolish gamblers; those who temporarily are without insurance; and those who cannot afford insurance. If those who cannot afford insurance are, say, 25% of the 50 million, that is a more manageable problem. Perhaps this is cured with some subsidies to those folks, along with reform of pre-existing condition rules. Thought #2: Is it prudent to rewrite 1/6th of the US economy as a rush project? Thought #3 If this is really caused by evil insurance companies,then the price of their stock should be sky-high, as they must be immensely profitable. Doesn't seem to be the case, however. Thought #4 The shift of blame to the insurance companies is a scapegoating maneuver, a Girardian diversion. Thought #5 The Tablet minimizes or ignores abortion. Thought #6 We are called to care for other people but to care for other people does not necessarily mandate support of a "public option" insurance company which would gradually put out of business private companies who cannot raise taxes to support themselves. The President suggested the Postal Service as analogous to the healthcare system he proposes. No thank you. Thought #7 To be in favor of healthcare reform is easy. Everyone is in favor of healthcare reform. The question is, what does that mean concretely? Thought #8 To assert that healthcare will increase in quantity, that it will not cost more and that there will not be rationing seems impossible to accomplish. My solution? Disconnect insurance from employment (allows freedom to move); oblige everyone to have insurance (an obligation of solidarity); let people maintain their own insurance policies (consistent with the principle of subsidiarity); require nationwide removal of pre-existing condition denials of insurance (again, subsidiarity--this is a national problem); support those who cannot afford insurance with rational funding mechanisms (grant, tax credit, something else?); allow interstate purchase of insurance; remove state mandates for procedures obnoxious to certain faiths (no state mandates for, e.g., sterilization, in vitro, abortion, contraceptives--all of which would support religious freedom).
ReplyDeleteSorry I am going on and on but I think the issues are important and I don't think the Tablet knows the story. It is attempting to tell the US bishops to support the socialism which hasn't worked very well in England. And I do agree with you (and the bishops)--this is a moral problem and we are obliged to care for those who cannot care for themselves. In doing so, we must be vigilant to not take the easy route to solving a problem (let those rich people pay for it all) which, in the long run, causes greater difficulties for everyone. Peace and all good things, Chick. Thanks for listening.