So there has been a recent spat between the Catholic News Service and the USCCB Media office head(see here). After reading some of the commentary I've come to two conclusions:
1. These things that CNA says were said probably were.
2. No one meant those things for publication.
Regardless of the awkwardness of the USCCB media office response, I don't think the Bishops meant for the remarks to be published. The nice thing about closed door meetings is that one can say what they really think. This is a good thing, in that open communication, however blunt, brings forth honesty.
Having said that, I find most of the comments to be an accurate description of how the healthcare "debate" panned out.
Showing posts with label Healthcare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Healthcare. Show all posts
Friday, June 25, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Pro-Reform, but not this reform
It is a curious tendency in today's politics to conflate opposition to a particular action or policy of the government with rejecting the principle that the policy is supposed to address outright. That the rejection of a bill in Congress to, say, reform federal welfare is to be against welfare reform in principle.
It is thus the curious tendency of those who support the current health care bill(s) in Congress to label those who oppose the bills as wanting to keep the status quo. That the current bills before the legislature are the only way to fix the current mess that is the U.S. health care financial system.
However that is not the case. In fact I think it may be one of the few things that all Americans agree on is that the financing system is in desperate need of reform. Whether you are Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, etc. you are under the thumb of a horribly inefficient and costly system. The quality of the care itself is second to none, yet you may go bankrupt by breaking a leg. Such a system cannot be sustained.
It is however the HOW that we are currently arguing over. What the current debate shows is a clash of political ideologies. Private market vs. state run. Centralized control vs. private ownership. Single-payer vs. private financing. Those on both sides of the fence know that with 17% of the economy on the line, who wins the debate over health care will more or less ultimately decide the course of America's political operating philosophy in this country for years to come.
As a small government conservative I have grave doubts about the ability of the U.S. government to control costs without restricting care. I also am skeptical of the ability of the national government to manage the financial system of 300 million people with the diversity that this country possesses. Other countries with far less geography and differences in culture experience great problems in state run care. This is not to say that there aren't benefits to a centralized system. But given that Western Europe's problems with state run care (France, England) with their spending of 11% of their GDP on average, state run care is far from a panacea. Thus while I acknowledge the problems we have I don't feel the current legislation is the way to go.
I am all too aware, as most of the opposition is, about the problems in the current system. But the unfortunate tendency to label those who disagree with us and stuff them in an ideological box so we can dismiss their argument is far too easy these days. If we are to solve the health care financial problems we will need to come up with a solution that we can all be comfortable with. The political left and right have the right to have a say. I am thankful that the wisdom of the founding fathers has shone through again and that sweeping changes cannot happen in this country unless both the minority and majority have a voice.
For homework today I suggest an excellent article about why our system is neither a free market or state controlled system, but a horrid hybrid of both. I welcome all comments and discussion provided that they are conducted in a spirit of charity.
It is thus the curious tendency of those who support the current health care bill(s) in Congress to label those who oppose the bills as wanting to keep the status quo. That the current bills before the legislature are the only way to fix the current mess that is the U.S. health care financial system.
However that is not the case. In fact I think it may be one of the few things that all Americans agree on is that the financing system is in desperate need of reform. Whether you are Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, etc. you are under the thumb of a horribly inefficient and costly system. The quality of the care itself is second to none, yet you may go bankrupt by breaking a leg. Such a system cannot be sustained.
It is however the HOW that we are currently arguing over. What the current debate shows is a clash of political ideologies. Private market vs. state run. Centralized control vs. private ownership. Single-payer vs. private financing. Those on both sides of the fence know that with 17% of the economy on the line, who wins the debate over health care will more or less ultimately decide the course of America's political operating philosophy in this country for years to come.
As a small government conservative I have grave doubts about the ability of the U.S. government to control costs without restricting care. I also am skeptical of the ability of the national government to manage the financial system of 300 million people with the diversity that this country possesses. Other countries with far less geography and differences in culture experience great problems in state run care. This is not to say that there aren't benefits to a centralized system. But given that Western Europe's problems with state run care (France, England) with their spending of 11% of their GDP on average, state run care is far from a panacea. Thus while I acknowledge the problems we have I don't feel the current legislation is the way to go.
I am all too aware, as most of the opposition is, about the problems in the current system. But the unfortunate tendency to label those who disagree with us and stuff them in an ideological box so we can dismiss their argument is far too easy these days. If we are to solve the health care financial problems we will need to come up with a solution that we can all be comfortable with. The political left and right have the right to have a say. I am thankful that the wisdom of the founding fathers has shone through again and that sweeping changes cannot happen in this country unless both the minority and majority have a voice.
For homework today I suggest an excellent article about why our system is neither a free market or state controlled system, but a horrid hybrid of both. I welcome all comments and discussion provided that they are conducted in a spirit of charity.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
The Civil War really was about slavery (who knew?)
In my youth I learned that the Civil War was about slavery. That Abe Lincoln and the North fought to free the slaves from the South. It was a nice tale.
Then in my sophisticated youth (as sophisticated as a teenage boy can be anyway) I learned that the Civil War was about states' rights. That the North and South disputed the amount of sovereignty that the federal government had. Slavery was there, but on the peripheral.
I wonder how much of my sophisticated view is true though? As Catholics, we are called to see that this world is as much a struggle about good and evil as it is about practical things. Slavery was always an issue. It nearly cost us the country, and because of it this country faced the bloodiest war in American history.
As a political conservative I happen to believe in state sovereignty. The South did as well. But in its quest to hold on to a horrendous evil, the South used state sovereignty as a legal shield. They tried every means to hold on to this evil, and in the end lost everything. Their homes, their local authority, even the slavery that they fought to protect, their "pecurliar institution and cherished way of life."
I can't help but think of how the health care reform debate would have gone had not the main proponents had not insisted on the horrible evil that is abortion. The proponents of health care reform insisted on including abortion funding despite 76% of the country not wanting it. In what appears to be the end, the proponents have lost their super-majority, the debate, and even the abortion funding.
It is true that there were other factors contributing to the defeat of the health care bill, but I can't help but wonder if, just like in the Civil War with slavery, that abortion was ultimately the downfall of the bill. The Church's Social Justice teaching holds that any compromise on the right to life under the guise of "social justice" becomes a lie, and ultimately fails to further the cause of social justice. It appears to me that we have a very clear case that trying to advance "universal health care" by sacrificing the unborn has only served to undermine that goal.
This is not to say that this country doesn't need health care reform. But as the South did by using a real principle (states' rights) as a means to preserve a great evil, so too have the abortion advocates used the real need for health care financing reform as a means to advance a great evil. And in doing so accomplished neither.
Then in my sophisticated youth (as sophisticated as a teenage boy can be anyway) I learned that the Civil War was about states' rights. That the North and South disputed the amount of sovereignty that the federal government had. Slavery was there, but on the peripheral.
I wonder how much of my sophisticated view is true though? As Catholics, we are called to see that this world is as much a struggle about good and evil as it is about practical things. Slavery was always an issue. It nearly cost us the country, and because of it this country faced the bloodiest war in American history.
As a political conservative I happen to believe in state sovereignty. The South did as well. But in its quest to hold on to a horrendous evil, the South used state sovereignty as a legal shield. They tried every means to hold on to this evil, and in the end lost everything. Their homes, their local authority, even the slavery that they fought to protect, their "pecurliar institution and cherished way of life."
I can't help but think of how the health care reform debate would have gone had not the main proponents had not insisted on the horrible evil that is abortion. The proponents of health care reform insisted on including abortion funding despite 76% of the country not wanting it. In what appears to be the end, the proponents have lost their super-majority, the debate, and even the abortion funding.
It is true that there were other factors contributing to the defeat of the health care bill, but I can't help but wonder if, just like in the Civil War with slavery, that abortion was ultimately the downfall of the bill. The Church's Social Justice teaching holds that any compromise on the right to life under the guise of "social justice" becomes a lie, and ultimately fails to further the cause of social justice. It appears to me that we have a very clear case that trying to advance "universal health care" by sacrificing the unborn has only served to undermine that goal.
This is not to say that this country doesn't need health care reform. But as the South did by using a real principle (states' rights) as a means to preserve a great evil, so too have the abortion advocates used the real need for health care financing reform as a means to advance a great evil. And in doing so accomplished neither.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)