In an effort to mobilize supporters of healthcare reform, representatives from a number of Christian denominations and others are organizing a national call-in webcast that will feature President Barack Obama. The program will begin at 5:00 p.m. EDT this evening.
The “40 Minutes for Health Reform” webcast is being organized by the advocacy group Faith in Public Life. That group consists of representatives from the Episcopal Church, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Sojourners, the National Council of Churches in Christ, and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, according to a release on the event.
“We believe there is a silent majority that has seen family and friends struggle,” said Kristin Williams, media relations associate for Faith in Public Life. “Those people are not the loud protestors at town hall meetings.”
So, if a particular parish, church, congregation supports anything not deemed “progressive” we hear howls of protest about separation of church and state. But advocating for something like this is OK?
1: Good call!
Most well-meaning religious folk including the Pope (lest one think I’m only mainline-bashing) just don’t get economics including the economic laws these schemes flout.
I believe this conference call took place last night. During the call the President falsely claimed that the plan does not provide federal funding of elective abortion. However, the Capps Amendment passed by a House Committee and attached to the bill requires the provision for elective abortion to be included in at least one plan in every federally-subsidized “exchange” and requires the HHS Secretary to include elective abortion in the public option. See [url=http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/08/obama_bears_false_witness_sayi.asp]here[/url] for details.
The bill might not directly do what Obama is calling lies, but it creates the conditions that will lead to it.
No death panels explicitly stated, but will the group that determines what procedures are covered use age as a factor? If they do, then that sounds like a death panel to me.
Illegal are explicitly exempted in writing, but there is not mention of how this will be enforced. Based on the enforcement of current immigration laws, I’ll bet illegals will have not problem getting in on this. I can already hear the cries of prejudice If anyone tries to verify citizenship.
I does not legislate government take over of health care, it just has provisions to get everyone else out of it. Small companies would probably be better off dumping insurance and paying the cost (fee, tax, whatever you want to call it) Companies that want to keep providing insurance have to provide care that is acceptable to the government. Individuals can keep their policies, but only if nothing changes on the policy. Private insurance companies will have to compete against a government subsidized plan in an Exchange where the government sets the rules. Please, this is government take over of the health care.
People might be happy with Medicare/Medicaid today, but both programs are going to need more tax money or reduce care. Doctor that see these patients get paid less than market rates for this work and have to make it up on other patients. When more people are under government plans, there will be fewer people to cover the difference.
The State is my shepherd, I shall not want…
Simple Economics 101 – if you increase the demand for a good or service that has its cost constrained, you will create shortages; i.e., rationing of health care. Anybody remember the movie “Logan’s Run?” See [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan’s_Run]Wikipedia[/url] to refresh your memory.
I believe what Ms. Williams meant was “we believe in socialism, where we, the governing elite, decide who is deserving and will get the money we take from the evil rich who steal it from the opressed workers.”
i am sure this won’t be perfect but i think we need to do something. some of our citizens are really in trouble and i can tell you that my own dear mother would really be in a fix if she and my father didn’t have that government backed programme of socialized medicine medicare. so regardless of the virulant rantings of extreme right wingers, i do believe that most people in this country want something done. health care reform was high on the list of what people voted the dems in for. sorry but after seeing all this rhetoric on television, i really believe that republicans would leave people to rot if it was their choice.
Ah, the silent majority. So the Left is now standing in solidarity with Dick Nixon? The history of that locution would make most modern-day political aspirants a little leery of using it, i’d think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_majority
I certainly want something done. President Obama’s plans are, most emphatically, not what I want done, however.
A current problem is insurance which pays for (and thus controls) treatment for every ache and pain. Obamacare will extend that dysfunctional system to the entire population. Moreover, manipulation of payment rates (plus other factors) put out of business many small hospitals that provided care as part of being in the community. In my (urban) community, the difference between the non-profit and for-profit hospitals is negligible. Certainly, executive compensation in those facilities that originated as Christian ministries is comparable to the for-profits, last I heard.
Young Fogey – while it’s true that Catholic social teaching is not wedded to free-market competition, the over-riding concerns are moral, not economic. No Christian should place making money ahead of caritas, at the individual or system level. I will admit I’ve not read the latest papal encyclical on the subject, however. Perhaps His Holiness has swollowed socialism, but I doubt it.
Why don’t Obama and Congress make a demonstration project of Medicare first? I this mean expand the covered procedures, drugs, treatments, providers, etc. while reducing costs. Since Medicare has been costing roughly 2-3 times what it was projected to in 1965, there ought to be loads of waste, fraud and abuse floating around to dispense with.
Would those thumping the tub for yet a larger federal role in health care support this?
Sorry….”By this I mean…”
it makes great sense that the leaders of TEC would be comfortable turning over healthcare to BArney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd etc. They are all on the same level competency and wisdom.
magnolia writes:
[blockquote]i really believe that republicans would leave people to rot if it was their choice. [/blockquote]
sigh. I don’t think you really believe that. I call you on this [mis]statement – I understand you are frustrated, but this is just as meaningless as when people say “I really believe Democrats love to see the bloody bodies of aborted babies.”
I’d rather see rational debate – first deciding exactly what our national goals are and then determining how we can get there.
respectfully mr. sulik, the only things i have heard out of the mouths of republicans are that they don’t want socialism, they think gov does a crappy job, there is absolutely nothing wrong with what we have now (thereby insinuating or even outright stating that whoever is not happy with the status quo didn’t prepare enough or are lazy slackers who want something for nothing), or the market should dictate everything and all will be well. not once have i ever heard that they are concerned that people are being left out or faced with total bankruptcy through no fault of their own. now, i understand the right’s concerns about what comes out here and i share in some of them, but we need bi-partisanship in this congress and i am getting tired of it not happening.
i would be sincerely interested in hearing what you think a sensible republican solution is, because perhaps i am not hearing it above the shrill voices at town hall meetings.
It is not logical to state that because one opposes the forced collectivization of health care and insurance thereof, one is happy with the status quo. That is not the case, and I, among many others here, have made specific suggestions about what to do to reduce cost and expand coverage. We are suffering the consequences of making thinking about health care in standard economic a societal taboo. We need to get back to good, sound, sane policy if we’re to avoid government rationing, exploding costs and national bankruptcy.
magnolia
It’s not surprising that you have not heard alternative plans from the MSM.
Here is one place you can read about an alternative to help improve the current system, not replace it with something worse:
[url=http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/aug/19/shift-in-health-care-debate/ ]Shift in health care debate[/url]
Here is some of it:
[blockquote] But Sen. DeMint is not merely a naysayer. He has recommended a number of market-based reforms since his election to the Senate. For example, he wants the government to encourage larger multistate insurance pools to reduce costs and increase availability. The senator says tax-deductible private health care accounts would enable more Americans to select insurance plans that match their needs and expectations. He wants to restrict the corrosive effect of frivolous lawsuits on health-care costs.[/blockquote]
Part of the problem is insurance companies covering too much. If you have a cold, see the doctor and get an antibiotic, there is no need for getting a insurance company involved. When you do, you have to pay for the doctor’s clerk to file the papers, the insurance company’s employees to review and process the papers, and the profit to the insurance company. That is like having car insurance for an oil change.
A better solution is Health Savings Accounts and high-deductible insurance policies. If the government wants to help people below a certain income level, give them money to help purchase their private insurance policies and fund their HSAs.
This would help in two ways. First since the patient is paying the doctor directly, they can decide on the level of care and cost without an interfering 3rd party (insurance company or govt) getting involved and adding cost. Second the high deductible insurance would be more affordable (since it would have to cover every scratch an sniffle). The HSAs would help cover the deductibles.
More patient control.
More doctor control
Less insurance company control (and cost)
Less government control (and cost)
It would make the system more efficient and responsive. Then it would cost less for the government to cover those that can’t cover themselves.
Magnolia,
I certainly share your concerns concerning bi-partisanship, and I am a registered republican. And I won’t speak for Mr. Sulik, who may have better, more thorough ideas than me. However, I would suggest two, maybe three things. Why not consider tort reform first? That would free up a great deal of money, thus pushing the cost of insurance down. And why force insurance companies to fund abortions and sex change? That could free up another chunk of money. And why not deregulate insurance programs so that people aren’t forced to buy within state. If that happened, the bureaucracy-heavy insurance companies would be forced by market pressure to become more streamlined and service oriented. Truth is, market forces really can regulate insurance, if the govt. steps out of the way. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking expediency will necessarily lead to efficiency; there is a lot more to this than just quick care. Our first consideration should be quality, which will suffer mightily at the hands of a bloated, inefficient, and often unethical bureaucracy. And besides, the Dems have been in control of congress for a while now, why do they suddenly need to pass this convoluted, partisan piece of work by the end of September, unless it’s partially about medical care, but mostly about political solvency? And, as has been pointed out, they have a president, a filibuster-proof majority in congress, and the radical left is completely in favor of this…so just how is it that a lack of bipartisanship is slowing them down? I might also suggest that the reason you haven’t heard republicans expressing sympathy with those who are struggling isn’t because they are heartless, but because the media won’t favor them with coverage.
And I might add, once again TEC backs the wrong horse.
magnolia: For those of us who have worked hard all our lives, didn’t purchase a house for more than we could afford, didn’t get over our heads in debt and put away money for retirement in what should be considered conventional investment vehicles, we don’t want to find ourselves in poverty and not be able to receive the health care we have always taken as a given. Like with the sub-prime mortgage collapse that made banks fail causing corporate bonds to vanish, etc, some of us don’t want to be mugged by the government for a second time. If you call us “right wingers†for voicing our concern at town meetings, or let the main stream media spin it that way, that is just your own name calling. The whole idea of HMOs was to catch and diagnose problems early on so they could be treated in a timely matter. My late wife had a blood test not forwarded to her PCP from a specialist for over three months. That delay cost her her life! That was an unfortunate error. To discourage people, especially in their fifties and older, from getting timely doctor appointments if something is of concern to them, will cause harm to an intolerably large percentage of the older population. You don’t think that is a valid concern?
Ditto what others have said in response to Magnolia’s suggestion that Republicans couldn’t care less about health care reform, or the lives of those in the health care system. I’m a physician, and a Republican. I LIVE in the system, I CARE about my patients, and I know full well the manifold imperfections of our current system. I’d like to above all see a reasoned, civil debate on the issues (both pertaining to financing and delivery of quality care). And, I’d be the first to say that SOME, by no means all, of the protestors at town hall meetings are overly strident and fuzzy on their facts.
That said, however, the Obama administration and the Dem-controlled Congress have done virtually NOTHING to make this a truly bipartisan, reasoned debate, and they’ve said and done a lot to foster the impression in a lot of Americans that they want to foist a hugely expensive, incredibly vague, very top-down scheme that will affect 1/6th of our economy on us WITHOUT MEANINGFUL DEBATE, and that us proles and “evil mongers” should just shut up and accept it. Frankly, Obama has said nothing IMHO to support his original haste in ramming a plan through–or how a massively expensive plan is going to “save the economy.”
Failing a more comprehensive, truly bipartisan approach that meaningfully involves all the major stakeholders, including patients, I’d rather see this botched attempt wither on the vine, and not end up creating a monumentally costly mess that those who succeed Obama and Co. will have to clean up, and we the people will have to live with.
If tEC is so worried about healthcare, why aren’t they donating those large empty patches of real estate to hospitals, or using money from the proceeds to help actual patients as opposed to paying people to go to Washington as lobbyists? I can think of another large sum of money the denomination is sitting on that would be far better suited toward the purpose of, say, paying for a homeless child’s appendectomy as opposed to the rather morally suspect manner it’s being used now? Or is this one of those “The poor are always with us, it’s the statement that’s important” things?
It is even worse than this article suggests. Shown below is the e-mail sent out by the Episcopal Public Policy Network:
Tell Congress — Don’t Leave Town without Passing Health Care Reform!
7/29/2009
On July 14, the House Committees on Education and Labor, Ways and Means, and Energy and Commerce introduced H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, which would provide access to affordable health care insurance for every person regardless of age, income, or health care status. However, it looks like Congress is poised to adjourn for an entire month without passing the bill out of the House of Representatives at a time when people are losing health insurance coverage everyday. Passage of this bill will mark the beginning of the effort to guarantee the assurance of affordable, quality health care coverage and peace of mind to American families, providing them with better care while costing them less.
At our recent 76th General Convention, the church reaffirmed its commitment to universal access to quality affordable health care in the United States, passing several resolutions calling on Congress to pass comprehensive health care reform this year.
H.R. 3200 would establish a mandate for everyone to have health insurance, expand eligibility for Medicaid, and establish new health insurance exchanges through which some people could purchase subsidized coverage. It would bring an end to costly co-pays and deductibles for preventive care and rate increases based on pre-existing conditions. Further, the bill offers access to a number of prevention and wellness services, such as community health centers and community-based wellness programs. America’s Affordable Health Choices Act is the first major attempt to fix America’s health care crisis by making health care more accessible, more affordable, and more effective.
Congress now has an opportunity to take the first major step toward enacting comprehensive health care reform legislation that will guarantee every American access to quality affordable health care; provide families with help in paying rising premiums and maintaining coverage; and end waste, fraud and abuse through health systems modernization. Click here today to urge your Member vote for the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act.
It is the height of irresponsibility to have urged the passage of such an enormous bill which no one had even read!
Well, of course. It is a left-wing political action organization. What else would it do?