Posts tagged with: health care reform

On May 21, 2010, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops released a media statement which sought to identify the way forward for Catholic engagement in the healthcare debate in light of the passage of healthcare legislation. The USCCB stresses that at the core of the bishops’ advocacy throughout the debate was a concern for three principles: (1) the protection of innocent life from the use of lethal force from conception to natural death; (2) the maintenance of conscience protections; and (3) the realization of universal access to healthcare for all, especially the poor and migrants. These, the USCCB stresses, will remain at the forefront of its contributions to the healthcare discussion. The USCCB consequently asks America’s “Catholic community to come together in defense of human life, rights of conscience and fairness to immigrants so we will have a health care system that truly respects the life, dignity, health and consciences of all.”

All this is well and good. Unfortunately, there is no mention in this text of a concern voiced by a good number of Catholic bishops throughout the debate: an assessment of whether the recent healthcare legislation can truly be said to reflect adherence to the principle of subsidiarity. For anyone who needs a reminder of what this principle means, here’s what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says (CCC 1883):

Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which ‘a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good’.

It’s important to note that subsidiarity is not an “anti-government” or “anti-state” principle. Indeed it affirms that there is a role for government because (1) there are some things that only governments can and should do and (2) sometimes the state does need to intervene when other communities are unable to cope temporarily with their particular responsibilities. Nor, it should be added, does subsidiarity always translate into the very same policy-positions, precisely because some elements of the common good are in a constant state of flux.

That said, it’s puzzling to say the least that the USCCB, both during and after the healthcare debate, is not in the habit of referencing subsidiarity as a vital principle for Catholics to reflect upon as they consider the implications of what few now question amounts to the massive expansion of Federal government control over healthcare in the United States. Contrary to what some Catholics imagine (especially the professional social justice activists who dissent from fundamental church dogmas and doctrines while casting anathemas against anyone who disagrees with their own prudential judgments on any number of economic issues), striving to widen access to healthcare need not automatically translate into the state assuming a dominant role.

In their important joint pastoral letter of August 22, 2009, Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas, and Bishop Robert W. Finn of Kansas City-St. Joseph listed subsidiarity as a vital principle upon which Catholics should reflect when thinking about health care reform. They even described subsidiarity as “the preamble to the Work of Reform”. Elsewhere in the document the bishops spelt out what this means for healthcare reform:

The right of every individual to access health care does not necessarily suppose an obligation on the part of the government to provide it. Yet in our American culture, Catholic teaching about the ‘right’ to healthcare is sometimes confused with the structures of ‘entitlement.’ The teaching of the Universal Church has never been to suggest a government socialization of medical services. Rather, the Church has asserted the rights of every individual to have access to those things most necessary for sustaining and caring for human life, while at the same time insisting on the personal responsibility of each individual to care properly for his or her own health.

During the healthcare debate, a considerable number of Catholic bishops expressed similar views. Bishops Walker Nickless of Sioux City, for example, was very specific:

… the Catholic Church does not teach that ‘health care’ as such, without distinction, is a natural right. The ‘natural right’ of health care is the divine bounty of food, water, and air without which all of us quickly die. This bounty comes from God directly. None of us own it, and none of us can morally withhold it from others. The remainder of health care is a political, not a natural, right, because it comes from our human efforts, creativity, and compassion. As a political right, health care should be apportioned according to need, not ability to pay or to benefit from the care. We reject the rationing of care. Those who are sickest should get the most care, regardless of age, status, or wealth. But how to do this is not self-evident. The decisions that we must collectively make about how to administer health care therefore fall under ‘prudential judgment.’ [I]n that category of prudential judgment, the Catholic Church does not teach that government should directly provide health care. Unlike a prudential concern like national defense, for which government monopolization is objectively good – it both limits violence overall and prevents the obvious abuses to which private armies are susceptible – health care should not be subject to federal monopolization.

Preserving patient choice (through a flourishing private sector) is the only way to prevent a health care monopoly from denying care arbitrarily, as we learned from HMOs in the recent past. While a government monopoly would not be motivated by profit, it would be motivated by such bureaucratic standards as quotas and defined ‘best procedures,’ which are equally beyond the influence of most citizens. The proper role of the government is to regulate the private sector, in order to foster healthy competition and to curtail abuses. Therefore any legislation that undermines the viability of the private sector is suspect. Private, religious hospitals and nursing homes, in particular, should be protected, because these are the ones most vigorously offering actual health care to the poorest of the poor.

These and similar views expressed by many bishops were dismissed as “libertarian” by whatever’s left these days of the Catholic left – as if only libertarians could possibly believe that limiting government power and encouraging private sector and civil society solutions to genuine social and economic problems are good things.

The truth, however, is that the USCCB’s professional social justice bureaucrats have a long history of playing down or even ignoring the implications of the principle of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity isn’t, for example, even listed as one of the “Themes of Catholic Teaching” on the Justice, Peace and Development section of the USCCB’s website. It is long past the time for that to change.

From the movie Fight Club (1999):

Narrator: Tyler, you are by far the most interesting single-serving friend I’ve ever met… see I have this thing: everything on a plane is single-serving…
Tyler Durden: Oh I get it, it’s very clever.
Narrator: Thank you.
Tyler Durden: How’s that working out for you?
Narrator: What?
Tyler Durden: Being clever.

The Hill reports that Dems feel healthcare fatigue.

Blue Dog Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.), who voted for the health overhaul, said the debate has shifted to the Obama administration, which must now implement the bill. “The healthcare bill is done,” Pomeroy said. “The action on healthcare is now in the executive branch as they implement the bill. It’s critically important that they implement it in a sound way, and I believe the attention of Congress is best spent on overseeing the sound implementation of this bill.”

Clever. Vote to nationalize the U.S. health care system even though you didn’t bother to read the 2,400-page bill. Then walk away because you’re “tired” and want to leave the heavy lifting to the White House. Plus, more photo-ops and press releases about health care from Rep. Pomeroy’s office would only serve to keep this on the mind of North Dakota voters.

Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) agreed with the premise that “members would be wary of major health legislation after we’ve spent so much time — we do have other priorities.” … “I could see that people would be exhausted if we were doing something major and controversial,” Waxman told The Hill. “So I think that we’ll probably limit ourselves right away in terms of what we’ll be pursuing.”

Paul Howard at City Journal looks at Obamacare’s Hidden Costs, a phenomenon certain to increase the fatigue factor among Obamacare supporters in the months and years ahead:

While the full cost of President Obama’s health-care legislation won’t be apparent until federal subsidies to the uninsured start flowing in 2014, Americans are getting an early glimpse of some of the unintended—but very costly—consequences of rushing through a 2,400-page bill affecting 17 percent of the economy. Since the president signed the bill into law on March 23, dozens of companies have reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission the losses that they expect to take as a result of the legislation. (Companies that offer drug benefits to their retirees will now be taxed for the partial federal subsidy that they receive for each retiree.) The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that as many as 40 major companies will take a hit, for a total of $3.4 billion; other cost estimates run even higher.

Greece, once again, provides a warning. Investor’s Business Daily asks, Guess What Greece Has To Jettison?:

Greece was told that if it wanted a bailout, it needed to consider privatizing its government health care system. So tell us again why the U.S. is following Europe’s welfare state model.

The requirement, part of a deal arranged by the IMF, the European Union and the European Central bank, is a tacit admission that national health care programs are unsustainable. Along with transportation and energy, the bailout group, according to the New York Times, wants the Greek government to remove “the state from the marketplace in crucial sectors.”

This is not some cranky or politically motivated demand. It is a condition based on the ugly reality of government medicine. The Times reports that economists – not right-wingers opposed to health care who want to blow up Times Square – say liberalizing “the health care industry would help bring down prices in these areas, which are among the highest in Europe.”

Of course most of the media have been largely silent about the health care privatization measure for Greece, as it conflicts with their universal, single-payer health care narrative.

In the Rapids City (S.D.) Journal, columnist Rick Kahler quotes an anecdote from an fellow financial planner:

“I have some good friends (dual Greek and U.S. citizens) who live in Athens. They tell me corruption is rampant and every tax increase is met by an exponential increase in the underground, noncompliant economy. There is no sense of duty to pay taxes. There is no sense of dishonor asking someone to transact business outside of the system.

“Greece’s health care system just about collapsed when it became socialized. First, long lines led to treatments being scheduled so far in the future that costs were reduced because patients routinely died before the treatment date. Citizens responded by taking paper bags filled with paper currency to doctors in exchange for prompt treatment.

“When this practice became common, the government eventually began arresting doctors.

Did this make the system function properly? Nope. The doctors simply used their nice European Union passports to leave the country and seek work elsewhere.

“Nurses were then expected to provide medical care they hadn’t been trained to do. This at least made costs go down—nurses started fleeing, too, so that salary expense declined. My friends in Athens report many Greek hospitals are ‘just walls—no doctors, no nurses, not even anyone worth bribing. When we need care, we buy a ticket to the U.S.”

Check out the Acton Institute resource page on Health Care.

I’m a little slow getting to this–some readers have doubtless already seen media reports–but if you weren’t yet aware of the Obama Administration’s actuaries’ study of the probable effects of Obamacare (released last Thursday), you should be. Our friend, Grace-Marie Turner of the Galen Institute presents the lowlights at NRO. Among the predictions:

Tens of billions of dollars in new fees and excise taxes will be “passed through to health consumers in the form of higher drug and devices prices and higher premiums.”

Under the new law, national health spending will increase by $311 billion over the coming decade. And instead of bending the federal spending curve down, it will move it upward “by a net total of $251 billion” over the next decade.

Mounting evidence that the majority of our nation’s lawmakers, who thought this was a good idea, were, to put it kindly, mistaken.

A good back-and-forth at in character on health care reform between Karen Davenport and Heather R. Higgins. Question: Will the implementation of the health-care bill passed by Congress improve the character of our country?

Davenport says “yes”:

While we cede some rights, we also assume new responsibilities. First, we assume the responsibility to obtain and maintain coverage for ourselves, and acknowledge that we cannot wait to purchase health insurance until we are sick. We also take on greater responsibility for others, particularly by helping individuals and families purchase coverage if they cannot afford to do so on their own.

Higgins says “no”:

In contrast, the health bill is premised on the idea that people should expect to be taken care of. This law is more aligned with the sentiments of a European social democracy where hard work is devalued and income inequalities condemned. In the health bill, personal freedom and individual choice are replaced with bureaucratic dictates, one-size-fits-all parameters, and the removal of responsibility and consequence from individuals. Citizens are infantilized as wards of the state. But that’s only the beginning of the adverse consequence that this travesty will have on our national character.

CBN News interviews Acton Research Fellow Anthony Bradley on “Theology, Politics & the African-American Community.” His new book, Liberating Black Theology — The Bible and the Black Experience in America, is now available from the Acton Book Shoppe.

Now that President Obama has signed into law the massive health care overhaul legislation that was passed by the House of Representatives on Sunday night, it’s time to start noting what will no doubt be a fantastic series of unintended consequences of the legislation. Granted, I could probably turn this into a regular feature on the PowerBlog, akin to my series of Global Warming Consensus Alert posts. But I have a feeling that documenting the ongoing degradation of the health care sector in that manner would only lead to a radically deepening depression for me, so for the sake of my mental health I’ll just note the occasional bit of news on the matter without formalizing it.

First of all: Remember how this legislation was going to ensure that — starting this year — no child could be denied insurance coverage due to a pre-existing condition? That was a big selling point for the President as recently as this past weekend, when Obama mentioned the provision in a Friday speech to an audience at George Mason University and on Saturday to Congressional Democrats. The only problem is that the provision wasn’t actually in the bill as sold by the President:

Hours after President Barack Obama signed historic health care legislation, a potential problem emerged. Administration officials are now scrambling to fix a gap in highly touted benefits for children.

Obama made better coverage for children a centerpiece of his health care remake, but it turns out the letter of the law provided a less-than-complete guarantee that kids with health problems would not be shut out of coverage.

Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill Obama signed into law Tuesday.

No worries though, because it turns out that the Obama administration believes that the problem can be fixed by issuing some new regulations.

Late Tuesday, the administration said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius would try to resolve the situation by issuing new regulations. The Obama administration interprets the law to mean that kids can’t be denied coverage, as the president has said repeatedly.

All I can say is that it’s reassuring that our gifted bureaucrats can issue arbitrary regulatory “fixes” to correct obvious flaws in the massive legislation that Congress rammed through on a series of late night and weekend votes after a year of shady backroom dealing and legislative bribery produced a bill that most members of congress likely can’t fully explain, probably haven’t even read in full, and the people opposed by a wide margin even after passage.

Your health care is in the very best of hands.

Another delightful bit of news: Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, a “staunch backer” of the legislation just signed by President Obama, has now been “rattled” by the new law because he apparently just now realized something that should have been perfectly obvious to even casual observers prior to passage of the bill:

A dire warning from Bay State medical-device companies that a new sales tax in the federal health-care law could force their plants – and thousands of jobs – out of the country has rattled Gov. Deval Patrick, a staunch backer of the law and pal President Obama.

“This bill is a jobs killer,” said Ernie Whiton, chief financial officer of Chelmsford’s Zoll Medical Corp., which employs about 650 people in Massachusetts. Many of those employees work in Zoll’s local manufacturing facility making heart defibrillators.

“We could be forced to (move) manufacturing overseas if we can’t pass along these costs to our customers,” said Whiton.

The threat – echoed by others in the critical Massachusetts industry – had the governor vowing to intervene to block the sales tax impact.

“I am obviously concerned about the medical device burden here on the commonwealth, which has a very robust industry around medical devices,” Patrick said yesterday.

Well thanks! It would have been nice if you would have thought through the consequences of your support before Congress decided to pass this monstrosity, but better late than never, I suppose.

Enough for now. I’m off to go celebrate this exciting new era in which we can all be free to be artists, or photographers, or (ahem) writers without worrying about health insurance costs. Hey, Nancy Pelosi said it, and her word is like gold!

Blog author: jcouretas
Wednesday, March 24, 2010

A new commentary from Dr. Donald Condit. Also see the Acton Health Care resource page.


Health Care Rights, and Wrongs

By Dr. Donald P. Condit

As Speaker Nancy Pelosi promoted passage of Sunday’s health care reform bill, she invoked Catholic support. However, those who assert the right to health care and seek greater responsibility for government as the means to that end, are simply wrong. This legislation fails to comport with Catholic social principles.

Claiming an entity as a right requires clear thinking about who possesses a claim to something while defining who must fulfill this obligation. We can clearly agree on responsibility to care for our neighbor and yet not promote federal dominion over doctors and nurses.

Some mistakenly quote Pope John XXIII‘s 1963 Encyclical Letter Pacem In Terris (Peace on Earth) discussing “the right to live… the right to bodily integrity and to the means necessary for the proper development of life, particularly food, clothing, shelter, medical care, rest, and, finally, the necessary social services (11).” In this context, the Holy Father speaks of health care as a natural right, with corresponding responsibilities, not as a direct obligation of the state. Nowhere in Pacem In Terris is government assigned accountability for food, clothing, shelter or health care.

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput recently reiterated the Church’s understanding of health care as a right. “At a minimum, it certainly is the duty of a just society. If we see ourselves as a civilized people, then we have an obligation to serve the basic medical needs of all people, including the poor, the elderly and the disabled to the best of our ability.” Yet, there are options for society to meet this duty apart from the federal government. (more…)