"A Bad Bill & How We Got It"

Here is Archbishop Charles Chaput's take on the Heath Insurance Bill.

I do not think "good intentions" of providing affordable health insurance excuse the serious sins of this bill. The intentions matter little if the vehicle hides other intentions, or if others attempt to hide them. The bill is so many pages (and includes student loan legislation!) that the intentions of the crafters may be manifold, while the public is told One Thing so they buy it (which polls apparently say they overwhelmingly did not). Was the real intention what David Leonhardt seems to say in the New York Times, "wealth redistribution"? Who knows--it's such a massive bill with multiple personalities. It's for the poor, It's for the uninsured, It's for fining free citizens for not buying coverage, It's Life Affirming, It's for financial efficiency, It's for driving down the cost of health care, It's for driving down the abortion rate. Whatever you're for, that's what it's for.

How we got it was through Chicago-style politics, which is to say, say whatever you have to say to get it done. The meek shall inherit the earth, but not now.

Comments

[Paul Williamson]

One of the main problems with the bill is its failure to address phenomenon which drove health care to center stage in the first place- rapidly rising costs. Health care became unaffordable for many and now it has the potential to become unaffordable for the nation as a whole. An estimated 30 million more were added to the insured category and coverage of preexisting conditions was mandated. Soaking the rich makes for an effective campaign slogan but as an instrument of public policy it is a phantom solution to our problems.

Causes for the out of control costs have been identified and include over prescribing of diagnostic procedures induced largely by excessive and sometimes frivolous tort actions, reliance on expensive technology, a lack of competition among health care insurance providers and the monopolization of hospital ownership by fewer but larger corporations. Action aimed at these problems will be opposed by powerful lobbies which include those representing the legal profession. Most law makers are lawyers. Large corporations and a proclivity to over regulate are also obstacles. Yet the problems will not go away if costs continue to rise as they have.

[Matt]

Chaput is a bit of a reactionary. Cardinal George took a more pro-life approach by applauding the effort to expand health care to all. The reactions of the USCCB are here

[Wilfred]

If you like standing in line at the Department of Motor Vehicles, you are going to luuuuv going to the doctor, once this thing kicks in.

[Paul Williamson]

Wilfred, the standing in line includes long waits to get an appointment. That's the experience in Canada and Europe where similar programs have already been instituted. Delayed treatment can signify inadequate treatment depending on the medical problem. It's not just inconvenience.

This should be no surprise though. If you add millions of patients to the pool without increasing the caretakers delays become inevitable.

[Kamilla]

Matt,

Somehow, it doesn't surprise me that you would call Abp Chaput a reactionary. Having heard him speak as well as having read many of his columns, I'd call him remarkably measured.

Kamilla

[Matt]

Kamilla, I don't doubt that he would have seemed that way to you. What do you think of Cardinal George? Do you agree with him that the expansion of health care to all is a good thing? My heart is warmed by his words and by this bill. I have great pride in my nation and in my president today. At last we Americans are taking care of our own, rather than indulging our lust for war. My faith in the goodness of our people is soaring. God has triumphed.

[Kamilla]

I don't believe for a moment this bill is an, "an expansion of healthcare to all" I am ashamed of my president and our Congress that they forced this on our nation at the price of the unborn.

Kamilla

[JCB]

I cannot still turn away tens of millions who have no access to health care, and 18,000 a year who die without it(CNN). I am pleased to be a Christ-follower, first, and citizen of a nation, second, that offers Social Security - also highly divisive at first - Medicare, and Medicade, Public Education, roads, defense.... I cannot imagine what the scores of people in our local church would do without these. I'm grieved when another friend is bankrupted because of health bills; another who is refused insurance because of life-threating, pre-existing conditions.... Their solution is...? If my taxes must go up $1,000/year, I'm more than willing to adjust. Govt. pograms need continual strengthening and refinement, as will the newly aopted health care bill. Kudos to the Executive and Legislative branches on this. Continued shame on the Judicial side for abortion.

[Brian Lago]

Matt and JCB,

It is the responsibility of the people of God to help those in need. Being willing to pay higher taxes to pass that responsibility on to the government is NOT compassion. It is not economically feasible to expand health care coverage as much as this bill does without the end result being a massive redistribution of wealth. I am also concerned about the increasing power of government over our private lives. It's easy to simply point to the need and say that this bill must therefore be good, but the devil will most certainly be in the details and in the future growth of the monster we may be about to unleash. God help us all.

[Matt]

Kamilla, would it help you to understand that this bill in no way changed abortion law? It's simply what we had before plus additional health care. The bill is not about abortion. The abortion issue is being used very cynically by some deceitful people to try to destroy the concept of universal health care for all. In fact, the unborn benefit from this bill. There will be wider access to prenatal care for pregnant women and even in utero surgery to save the lives of the unborn. As so many are saying, wider access to health care correlates with reduced abortion rates and longer, healthier lives for all.

Brian Lago, I understand your concerns, but bear in mind that this bill is in large part about regulating the insurance companies. Most Christian faiths condemn the extremes of both unregulated, rampant capitalism and communism. This bill shows government working for the people to protect them against corporate abuses, such as insurance companies who take your money while you're well and throw you off their plans when you get cancer. Like JCB, if there's anything I'm happy to pay taxes for, it's health care, public education, and social security. These are services that we as a decent society should provide.

[ahem]

It was a takeover of the government by the hard Left--nothing less. Last Sunday, you enjoyed a degree of freedom that was the envy of the world;it took hundreds of years and millions of lives to give it to you. Monday, you became a slave of the state. Obama is a Communist. The legislation has nothing whatever to do with healthcare. It was a coup. Ultimately, my countrymen will wake up.

[Paul Williamson]

JCB:
"I cannot still turn away tens of millions who have no access to health care, and 18,000 a year who die without it(CNN).'

The no access claim is simply false. My wife has worked in the medical field all her life. I have nurses and a doctor in my family. They all tell the same thing. No one is turned away from needed treatment. By law you have to treat people in emergency rooms and emergency rooms in reality treat non-emergency cases. Thousands have been estimated to die in socialized medicine countries where long waits for "available care" are the norm. Treatment that is months delayed is not adequate care.

[Chelie]

Not to mention that what really riles most people about this bill is that they are being forced to pay for health care, for themselves AND for others, whether they want to or not. Talk about anti-choice!

[Matt]

>>It was a takeover of the government by the hard Left ... Obama is a Communist. <<

Obama is essentially a Rockefeller/Ford Republican, a moderate Republican from two generations ago. The sort who accepted a 70% marginal tax bracket on the highest earners, thought a mandated Corporate Average Fuel Economy was a prudent measure, agreed that blacks and women should have equal rights (The ERA was ultra-popular in both parties prior to the founding of the Heritage Foundation in 1975), thought a decent minimum wage made sense, and agreed that there should be some kind of health care for everyone.

His policy positions, both foreign and domestic, are squarely in line with those of the first George Bush. His health care reform matches closely to that proposed by the Heritage Foundation in 1993.

So the party of the left is now the party of the right, and the party of the right is going insane trying to distance itself from the party of the left. Nobody is representing the left.

[Robert Espe]

Another concern that most people don't notice was the availability of federal funds to states that will use them to fund programs where CPS will go into homes and "advise" parents on how best to raise their children. Of course this will all be voluntary, but since funding will be tied to use of the program, who knows how long it will stay that way.