Affordable Health Care is a Christian Act

[Wiljo2050]

Amen Jerry Wish more people with your education on this site!Protestant partisan politicians have got a foothold in catholic church.they court the bishop for his vote and go back to the congregations and agree with the preachers condeming the catholic church.They court the protestant vote by saying their christians and prolife then when no ones looking have adulterous,and gay affairs.Partners with power in greed and war! As long as someone says they are prolife the church looks away to any sin and will always reccomend a vote to that politician! Their ticket to any sin or horrific policies that lies and kills young men in Iraq!That always sides with greedy oil people that dump waste in the ocean1policies that have no care for making air cleaner.These are christian principals.God made the earth why not treat it respectfully?Wake up church you have been bought and sold!

 

[Ender]

So consider the fact that finally creating some kind of system for universal health care access – a concept long urged by US Council of Catholic Bishops – is in itself a humane act that would certainly qualify as Christian in terms of its goal of relieving the human suffering on a catastrophic scale that is going on in this country. Support the efforts in our country to correct this moral wrong.

You fail to distinguish between means and ends. The end of creating the best possible medical coverage for everyone is surely noble and everyone could support that … while disagreeing violently about what means would best achieve that goal.

That I may oppose your suggestions (e.g. Obamacare) only says that I oppose the means you have chosen, not that I oppose your objective. We are morally free to oppose any health care proposal we believe would be ineffective or harmful. There is no morally superior position among the various health care proposals.

Ender

 

[ACCT]

The philosophy of socialism is failure and the gospel of socialism is envy. (Winston Churchill).

Ludwig von Mises wrote, “Authors of economics books, essays, articles, and political platforms demand interventionist measures before they are taken, but once they have been imposed no one likes them. Then everyone—usually even the authorities responsible for them—call them insufficient and unsatisfactory. Generally the demand then arises for the replacement of unsatisfactory interventions by other, more suitable measures. And once the new demands have been met, the same scenario begins all over again.”

"After decades of governmental intervention into the health-care arena, the failures are apparent for all to see. But rather than root out the cause of the problem, Americans are demanding that government do something about it…”

Most Americans, including many free-market advocates, simply will not—perhaps cannot—face the truth: that the welfare state (socialism) and the managed economy (interventionism) have never worked and can never work. No matter what is done—no matter who is put in charge—no matter what plan is used—the result will always be the same: failure. The sooner we come to grips with this truth, the sooner we can begin traveling the road to a healthy and prosperous society (Hornberger)."

 

[Swiss_Guy]

One thing that is often overlooked in this controversy is that the intent of President Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act is fix one of the biggest disgraces of the USA, namely that we are the last industrialized country without a national health care system, and this results in an incalculable amount of suffering, death and hardship for Americans.

Let’s talk about the immoral situation that has been the USA without a decent health care system: The 45,000 people dying in the USA for lack of adequate health care. The 62% of bankruptcies resulting from family medical costs, the 50% (over half a million homes) of foreclosures that came from medical costs. If such death and hardship were caused by a natural disaster or enemy attack, it would be an unparalleled catastrophe, but it’s been happening every year. Think about how much suffering comes from just one tragic death and then multiply it by 45,000, think about thousands of homeless families, and then you’ll realize that, in trying to finally find a solution to this mess, Obama is doing a very Christian and heroic thing.

We live in a pluralistic democracy which means we all pay taxes for things we don’t want to necessarily support – for the death penalty, for ongoing war, for weapons of mass destruction – but that’s the price we pay for living in this kind of society. We have to make the same (and actually minor) compromises to correct this moral evil of lack of health care access. Whether with the progressive Single Payer plan or this conservative solution of business/individual mandated health insurance, various groups paying indirectly for something they would rather not is just a reality of life, and one they should welcome in order to right the moral evil of lack of health care access.

I have international clients in Spain (AKA 70% Catholic Spain) and when I tell them about this controversy they think I am kidding. They would never dream of having a Catholic mandates in their national health care system.

So consider the fact that finally creating some kind of system for universal health care access – a concept long urged by US Council of Catholic Bishops – is in itself a humane act that would certainly qualify as Christian in terms of its goal of relieving the human suffering on a catastrophic scale that is going on in this country. Support the efforts in our country to correct this moral wrong.

I’m all for universal health care, but Obamacare and its mandates require abortions, and abortions kill more people than lack of health care. So if he can put together some other kind of system, I’m all for it.

For what I’m for see: pitt.edu/~heinisch/ca_germ.html

Brains behind the system: dbk.de/en/katholische-kirche/katholische-kirche-deutschland/aufgaben-kath-kitche/soziale-verantwortung/

Other countries such as Switzerland and Austria are somewhat similar as well, at least from what I know.

 

[Jerry_Miah]

Here’s a source for the cost underestimates:
blog.heritage.org/2009/08/04/health-care-reform-cost-estimates-what-is-the-track-record/

Here’s another:
washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/18/health-programs-have-history-of-cost-overruns/print/

But the fact of benefit programs vastly exceeding estimates is not surprising. It has a long history.

The U.S.government cannot even operate day to day without borrowing–$5 billion per day just to keep paying the bills. Does anyone really think that is sustainable? And does demanding something for nothing qualify as greed? Do AARP members demanding no changes whatever to an unsustainable Medicare system qualify as greed?

And it is not just me saying that the debt crisis is the most serious crisis we have. The only disagreement is on how soon we should begin to try to fix it. Progressives say, we need to spend more now to stimulate the economy, and after the economy is growing again, then work on the deficit. Conservatives say, fixing the problem can’t wait.

But most in Congress are perfectly willing to put off action. There’s no votes in reducing the debt or in reducing spending.

How much longer do you think the nation can continue to spend that much more than it takes in? Some might say, “forever—just keep printing money.” But that cure is equally as bad as bankruptcy.

Ben Bernanke warned Congress 2 years ago that the U.S.'s long term debt situation was unsustainable. It’s worse now. The Bowles-Simpson commission presented a bipartisan plan for debt reduction. Everybody ignored it.

Economist Bill Helming forecasts another depression. But he’s been wrong before. Let’s hope he is wrong again.

housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=138839

columbiamissourian.com/stories/2010/03/13/olathe-economist-predicts-depression-looming/

Some of us old codgers may not live long enough to see the worst of the aftermath of this debt bubble. But those who deliberately continue to inflate it till it bursts are doing the next generation no service. Everyone will end up poorer.

I getting to be something of an old coot myself, and us codgers have got to avoid bad sources of info. Both the Washington Times and the Heritage Institute are biased, far right conservative advocacy organizations, not legitimate news sources. They aim to deceive, in a word. There is really no point in trying to untangle their twisting of statistics, it’s better to try to find more middle-of-the-road, trustworthy sources.

(However, one interesting fact is that the individual mandate that is the basis of Obama’s health reform was once the Heritage Institute’s proposal as a free-market solution to the health care problem. This goes to show how much the rhetoric in the country has changed, since the former conservative, capitalist solution is now slammed as “socialism”.)

I will just repeat that the CBO is nonpartisan and generally accurate in their accounting, and that they say Obama’s health care reform will lower the deficit, not increase it. Which besides the moral intention of the effort is another reason to support it.

 

[Jerry_Miah]

I’m all for universal health care, but Obamacare and its mandates require abortions, and abortions kill more people than lack of health care. So if he can put together some other kind of system, I’m all for it.

This is simply not true, it is a falsehood spread by cynical opponents. Obama’s health care does not pay for abortions.

**

In addition to Federal courts, health policy experts, independent fact-checkers and media investigations all conclude that the Affordable Care Act does not provide federal funding of abortion services.

**[faith(name removed by moderator)ubliclife.org/blog/hr_358_based_on_false_premise/](http://www.faith(name removed by moderator)ubliclife.org/blog/hr_358_based_on_false_premise/)

[ Here is a Catholic worker on the subject:](http://www.faith(name removed by moderator)ubliclife.org/blog/hr_358_based_on_false_premise/)

**People who receive federal subsidies to purchase health insurance who choose plans that include abortion coverage will have to pay separate premiums out of their own pockets for the abortion coverage. This premium will have to cover the full cost of the abortion coverage and be kept in a separate audited account.

In addition to safeguards against federal funding of abortion, the healthcare bill contains numerous provisions that are likely to reduce the incidence of abortion, a goal we can all wholeheartedly embrace, by supporting economically vulnerable women. **

More from a nonpartisan fact checker: politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/16/national-right-life-committee/abortions-pennsylvania-paid-federal-dollars-not-so/

 

[JimG]

The fact remains, Obama’s budget will only increase the outstanding U.S. debt. It will simply NEVER reduce it. He has no plans to reduce it. The endpoint is fiscal disaster.

“If you think those town hall meetings over health care were fierce, wait until Americans come to understand the threat to our national financial survival posed by the interest on the government’s credit card.
. . . . In stark but simple terms, unless Americans are made aware of this financial crisis and demand accountability, the very fabric of our society will be destroyed. Interest rates and interest costs will soar and government revenues will be devoured by interest on the national debt.”

Source: online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704429304574467071019099570.html

 

[ACCT]

".)

I will just repeat that the CBO is nonpartisan and generally accurate in their accounting, and that they say Obama’s health care reform will lower the deficit, not increase it. Which besides the moral intention of the effort is another reason to support it.

The national debt never will be repaid. We are past the point of no return. Additionally, there is no moral reason to support Omamacare and it is ludicrous to think that Obamacare will lower the deficit.

God respects our freedom to choose. Therefore, I argue for economic and political freedom. There will always be a need for government. However, I want to return to the vision of government as held by Adam Smith and our founding fathers in 1776. That government was small and its function was that of an umpire.

Today’s government is out of control. It wants to be my partner and I want to get rid of my partner. I want to be free to choose. I no longer have that freedom. Instead, this government of ours follows the socialist philosophy of participating in our lives and economy. We cannot have political freedom if we do not have economic freedom.

The Catholic Church opposes socialism because it is not voluntary. Socialism is forced upon us by the government. Big government (socialism) is not the solution; it is the problem.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

This is simply not true, it is a falsehood spread by cynical opponents. Obama’s health care does not pay for abortions.

****[faith(name removed by moderator)ubliclife.org/blog/hr_358_based_on_false_premise/](http://www.faith(name removed by moderator)ubliclife.org/blog/hr_358_based_on_false_premise/)

[ Here is a Catholic worker on the subject:](http://www.faith(name removed by moderator)ubliclife.org/blog/hr_358_based_on_false_premise/)

More from a nonpartisan fact checker: politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/16/national-right-life-committee/abortions-pennsylvania-paid-federal-dollars-not-so/

It provides abortifacients.

Either way, it still costs way too much and there could probably be a much cheaper way to administer universal health care without having it run by the federal government. It’s still way too social democratic for me anyway.

 

[Jerry_Miah]

The fact remains, Obama’s budget will only increase the outstanding U.S. debt. It will simply NEVER reduce it. He has no plans to reduce it. The endpoint is fiscal disaster.

“If you think those town hall meetings over health care were fierce, wait until Americans come to understand the threat to our national financial survival posed by the interest on the government’s credit card.
. . . . In stark but simple terms, unless Americans are made aware of this financial crisis and demand accountability, the very fabric of our society will be destroyed. Interest rates and interest costs will soar and government revenues will be devoured by interest on the national debt.”

Source: online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704429304574467071019099570.html

Well, the subject is the Affordable Health Care Act, not the whole US government budget, and the fact is the Act is projected to lower the deficit which means it will work toward lowering the debt. So, if your problem with the Act concerns the debt, there is no reason to oppose it.

 

[Nate13]

This is simply not true, it is a falsehood spread by cynical opponents. Obama’s health care does not pay for abortions.

Actually it does.

independentsentinel.com/2012/03/everyone-will-pay-for-1-abortions-under-obamacare/

A new HHS rule provides for $1 abortions by state health care exchanges and it will be funded by taxpayer dollars. The Hyde Amendment which blocks direct taxpayer funding of abortions will be circumvented with an accounting trick.

“To comply with the accounting requirement, plans will collect a $1 abortion surcharge from each premium payer,” the pro-life source informed LifeNews. “The enrollee will make two payments, $1 per month for abortion and another payment for the rest of the services covered. As described in the rule, the surcharge can only be disclosed to the enrollee at the time of enrollment. Furthermore, insurance plans may only advertise the total cost of the premiums without disclosing that enrollees will be charged a $1 per month fee to pay directly subsidize abortions.”

Also you have to love the transparency here. Insurance plans are not allowed to disclose that the price your paying includes the cost of the $1 charge for abortions.

In addition to Federal courts, health policy experts, independent fact-checkers and media investigations all conclude that the Affordable Care Act does not provide federal funding of abortion services.

Now this statement is completely true. The key word though is FEDERAL funding. The government is not going to pay for it with tax dollars. They are just going to require insurance companies to charge you for it directly. Its an even more direct way of making you pay for abortions then doing it via tax dollars.

See full explanation of the law and its consequences by expert lawyers on EWTN here:
youtube.com/watch?v=9d0jhhWgUio

Starts at 12 minutes in.

 

[Jerry_Miah]

Actually it does.

independentsentinel.com/2012/03/everyone-will-pay-for-1-abortions-under-obamacare/
Also you have to love the transparency here. Insurance plans are not allowed to disclose that the price your paying includes the cost of the $1 charge for abortions.

Now this statement is completely true. The key word though is FEDERAL funding. The government is not going to pay for it with tax dollars. They are just going to require insurance companies to charge you for it directly. Its an even more direct way of making you pay for abortions then doing it via tax dollars.

See full explanation of the law and its consequences by expert lawyers on EWTN here:
youtube.com/watch?v=9d0jhhWgUio

Starts at 12 minutes in.

No, that’s not right either. If the individual wants abortion services to be part of their federal premium assistance,they have to pay for that part with their own money. That’s the main point of the Act in this way, that it doesn’t change the status quo on taxes going toward abortions.

By the way, in order to try to refute conclusions from Federal courts, health policy experts, independent fact-checkers and media investigations, all reputable and relatively unbiased, you cite “lifenews.com” and EWTN, the Catholic TV network, which are not exactly unbiased on the subject. Do you see the problem there?

 

[Nate13]

No, that’s not right either. If the individual wants abortion services to be part of their federal premium assistance,they have to pay for that part with their own money. That’s the main point of the Act in this way, that it doesn’t change the status quo on taxes going toward abortions.

By the way, in order to try to refute conclusions from Federal courts, health policy experts, independent fact-checkers and media investigations, all reputable and relatively unbiased, you cite “lifenews.com” and EWTN, the Catholic TV network, which are not exactly unbiased on the subject. Do you see the problem there?

I deeply sorry that CNN does not run a cover story featuring the Obama administration indirectly forcing people who get insurance to pay for abortions.

Here is another article that breaks it down for you step by step:
lifenews.com/2012/03/23/understanding-obamacares-1-abortion-surcharge-in-three-steps/

If you watched the EWTN clip you would also have learned the law only requires that one pro-life insurance option is available. In other words if you don’t want to pay for abortions you could quite possibly only have one policy option. If that policy doesn’t work for you, your then out of luck. You cannot purchase one of the other policy options that meets your needs and bow out of the $1 surcharge for abortions. It is entirely likely you will be forced to choose between the policy you need and the policy that is in line with your conscience. Many people may end up buying a policy that pays for abortions without even knowing it, because the Obama administration has ordered that information not be publicized.

This bill is filled with round about ways the government indirectly forces people to do what it wants and make people have no choice but to violate their consciences.

 

[Jerry_Miah]

I deeply sorry that CNN does not run a cover story featuring the Obama administration indirectly forcing people who get insurance to pay for abortions.

Here is another article that breaks it down for you step by step:
lifenews.com/2012/03/23/understanding-obamacares-1-abortion-surcharge-in-three-steps/

If you watched the EWTN clip you would also have learned the law only requires that one pro-life insurance option is available. In other words if you don’t want to pay for abortions you could quite possibly only have one policy option. If that policy doesn’t work for you, your then out of luck. You cannot purchase one of the other policy options that meets your needs and bow out of the $1 surcharge for abortions. It is entirely likely you will be forced to choose between the policy you need and the policy that is in line with your conscience. Many people may end up buying a policy that pays for abortions without even knowing it, because the Obama administration has ordered that information not be publicized.

This bill is filled with round about ways the government indirectly forces people to do what it wants and make people have no choice but to violate their consciences.

I’m deeply sorry that you actually believe those bearing false witness, and that your only source of truth is EWTN.

 

[Nate13]

I’m deeply sorry that you actually believe those bearing false witness, and that your only source of truth is EWTN.

My sources are the actual lawyers involved in the case at the Supreme Court who just happened to be on EWTN. The law very clearly says there must be a pro-life option. It only specifies that there has to be one pro-life policy option though and that you cannot buy a policy that pays into an abortion fund and refuse to pay the charge. Thus by default you can coerce a lot of people into paying for abortions.

This law is also a disgrace to democracy. Congress basically wrote the equivalent of a blank check to Sebelius. There are over 300 times in the law where it states “will be determined by the Health and Human Services Secretary”. There is no greater abomination than this of laws that affect millions of people being written by unelected leaders. Both this abortion surcharge and the contraceptives/sterilizations/plan B mandate can be attributed to her.

 

[markomalley]

When Obamacare was being proposed, I was very much so opposed to it.

But now that it’s a fact and now that the regulations are coming out supporting the legislation, I am beginning to see that it could be a huge moneymaker for my company. That may really make it turn out OK for me, personally (more earnings = bigger bonuses for those of us who contribute).

Of course, we are making good money with the electronic health records requirement already. That is only going to grow over time

But where I see the big moneymaker is helping the government out with developing predictive algorithms for cost effectiveness of therapies. Of course, it is pretty easy to do through performing a relatively simple sensitivity analysis looking at a person’s health history (accessible through the electronic health records that are becoming all centralized), the cost of the proposed procedures, and a static amortization table that determines the likely long-term outcomes. Where we are looking at making a major breakthrough is by adding in factors to the sensitivity analysis.

After all, what might be totally cost ineffective for a person with projected earnings of $250,000 for the rest of their lives (along with corresponding tax receipts) might be very effective for a person who is projected to earn $25,000,000 after the procedures are completed. The government might actually make the money back in tax receipts in the latter case, while in the first case, there’s no possibility of a “break even” point being reached. (Remember that the government only subsidizes lower and lower middle class people’s insurance premiums).

In addition, we’re also working on a social worth component of this analysis that can be optionally applied by the government. We will make it possible for them to look at a patient’s past charitable contributions claimed on their taxes, their political contributions, their online presence, and, if the proper laws are enacted, their past credit card spending, in order to determine whether the person is of the correct “social” position to receive benefits or not. Again, the law allows the government to determine what is cost effective. It doesn’t really mandate how “cost effectiveness” is determined.

CAVEAT: for those of you who are horrified, no, my company isn’t working on such an algorithm. But such an analysis tool is easily possible. And completely legal. And I know of two companies on the I-270 corridor in Rockville, Maryland, that are working on this type of thing…minus the social profile.

CAVEAT 2: for those of you who are not horrified…all I can say is ((sigh))

 

[ACCT]

My sources are the actual lawyers involved in the case at the Supreme Court who just happened to be on EWTN. The law very clearly says there must be a pro-life option. It only specifies that there has to be one pro-life policy option though and that you cannot buy a policy that pays into an abortion fund and refuse to pay the charge. Thus by default you can coerce a lot of people into paying for abortions.

This law is also a disgrace to democracy. Congress basically wrote the equivalent of a blank check to Sebelius. There are over 300 times in the law where it states “will be determined by the Health and Human Services Secretary”. There is no greater abomination than this of laws that affect millions of people being written by unelected leaders. Both this abortion surcharge and the contraceptives/sterilizations/plan B mandate can be attributed to her.

 

[ACCT]

One thing that is often overlooked in this controversy is that the intent of President Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act is fix one of the biggest disgraces of the USA, namely that we are the last industrialized country without a national health care system, and this results in an incalculable amount of suffering, death and hardship for Americans.

Let’s talk about the immoral situation that has been the USA without a decent health care system: The 45,000 people dying in the USA for lack of adequate health care. The 62% of bankruptcies resulting from family medical costs, the 50% (over half a million homes) of foreclosures that came from medical costs. If such death and hardship were caused by a natural disaster or enemy attack, it would be an unparalleled catastrophe, but it’s been happening every year. Think about how much suffering comes from just one tragic death and then multiply it by 45,000, think about thousands of homeless families, and then you’ll realize that, in trying to finally find a solution to this mess, Obama is doing a very Christian and heroic thing.

We live in a pluralistic democracy which means we all pay taxes for things we don’t want to necessarily support – for the death penalty, for ongoing war, for weapons of mass destruction – but that’s the price we pay for living in this kind of society. We have to make the same (and actually minor) compromises to correct this moral evil of lack of health care access. Whether with the progressive Single Payer plan or this conservative solution of business/individual mandated health insurance, various groups paying indirectly for something they would rather not is just a reality of life, and one they should welcome in order to right the moral evil of lack of health care access.

I have international clients in Spain (AKA 70% Catholic Spain) and when I tell them about this controversy they think I am kidding. They would never dream of having a Catholic mandates in their national health care system.

So consider the fact that finally creating some kind of system for universal health care access – a concept long urged by US Council of Catholic Bishops – is in itself a humane act that would certainly qualify as Christian in terms of its goal of relieving the human suffering on a catastrophic scale that is going on in this country. Support the efforts in our country to correct this moral wrong.

 

[Ender]

I think a government-run plan is the best way to attain the Church’s goal of universal healthcare (affordable healthcare for all).

The Church has no such goal any more than she has the goal of eliminating poverty. She has no teaching that can be interpreted to mean we should support or oppose any particular health care solution. We are told to work for the common good but it is left to us to figure out the details of how that can best be done. There may be valid practical reasons to support Obamacare (although I am not aware of any) but there is no moral difference between supporting it or opposing it.

And I don’t forget that just a few years ago the Church supported Obama’s plan as long as it had an exemption.

This is incorrect as well: the Church never had any position at all on Obamacare. I’ll grant that a number of bishops supported it for prudential reasons but we are certainly not bound by their political preferences nor, more to the point, do those opinions constitute Church teaching.

Ender

 

[vsedriver]

One thing that is often overlooked in this controversy is that the intent of President Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act is fix one of the biggest disgraces of the USA, namely that we are the last industrialized country without a national health care system, and this results in an incalculable amount of suffering, death and hardship for Americans.

The Affordable Health Care Act is not about creating affordable national health care. It is about regulating Health Insurance companies and dictating to both business and the insurance companies as to what they can and can not do.

If the President really wanted to improve access to health care by making it more affordable he would start at what makes it so expensive… lack of doctors and nurses and cost of doing business in the medical fields which must carry all kinds of insurances just to operate.

Open more medical schools, reduce the cost of tuition, government backed catastrophic illness insurance, government backed liability insurance for medical businesses, tort reform. And all medical expenses should be tax deductible, not just those that amount to 7% of your income.

Health Insurance companies are not in business to provide national health care. They are in business to make money.

I think it is interesting that the government feels contraception is necessary to mandate when it only affects a certain number of people in society yet doesn’t think dental, eye, or hearing medical care which affects just about everyone is necessary.