Bishop decries 'combative tactics' of a minority of U.S. bishops | National Catholic Reporter

Bishop decries 'combative tactics' of a minority of U.S. bishops
'Catholic community risks isolating itself from the rest of the country.'
Aug. 26, 2009
By Tom Roberts
Politics

Archbishop Michael J. Sheehan Albuquerque, NM

A majority of U.S. bishops disagree with the loud tactics of some of their peers in opposing President Barack Obama’s May appearance at the University of Notre Dame, but remain silent because they do not want to engage in a public battle over the issue, according to Archbishop Michael J. Sheehan of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, NM.

In an Aug. 12 interview at archdiocesan headquarters here with NCR, Sheehan took the opportunity to decry the combative tactics of what he described as a minority of U.S. bishops who spoke out against the university’s invitation and issuance of an honorary degree. Many urged the university to rescind the invitation because of Obama’s opposition to criminalizing abortion."

Read MoreBishop decries 'combative tactics' of a minority of U.S. bishops National Catholic Reporter:

We're number 37

Haves and Have Nots: a healthcare parable.

Once upon a time there was living in a proud republic, the Haves and the Have Nots. The Haves were always boasting about what they have, how good they have it and how anybody can have what they have if they just work hard enough. The Have Nots were always wanting what the Haves had but they never seem to have what the Haves have.

Even though the Haves like what they have (and who wouldn't), they didn't really want the Have Nots to have what they have. Along came the the Have A Lots, who are rarely seen in public unless they are testifying. The Have A Lots convinced the Haves that if the Have Nots have what the Haves have the Haves would no longer have what they have. This made the Haves very much afraid and the Have Nots very sad. How could the Haves who really like what they have not want the Have Nots to have it too?

Then something terrible began to happen. Many of the Haves became sick or unemployed or downsized and joined the Have Nots. The new Have Nots began to tell the old Have Nots what they once had and how to have it too. The Have Nots began to believe that what the Haves have is something that everyone should have. The Have Nots worked hard to elect representatives who happen to have what the Haves have, to help them get what the Haves have too so all could peaceful in the republic. The Have A Lots would have nothing of it. The Have A Lots told the Haves that the Have Nots are really "illegals" and socialists and communists and nazis. The Have A Lots warned of death panels and long lines and higher taxes. They said the Have Nots only wanted to take what the Haves have even if they didn't deserve it. The Haves listened to the lies of the Have A Lots and repeated the lies. They organized themselves from behind the scenes and told the Haves to be very afraid and to shout louder and louder in town halls and public squares that the Have Nots could not have what the Haves have because: it would be inconvenient.

Inconvenient? You see, the Haves like what they have. If they have to share what they have with the Have Nots they may have to wait in longer lines to get what they have. In reality it is the Have A Lots who would not have as much if the Have Nots get to have what the Haves have. But the Haves, being a fearful bunch were much afraid to read and find out the truth. They instead listened to Have A Lots who tell them how good they have it and how letting the Have Nots have what they have would be bad for them. Currently the Haves are in danger of becoming a Have Not if they get sick or lose their job or have some pre-existing condition. So, they want to have more of what the Have A Lots Have but not if it means helping the Have Nots to have what they have. They are so afraid of becoming a Have Not, that they don't realize how precarious their situation is. Since the Have Nots have nothing to lose, it was up to the Have Nots to help the Haves continue to have what they have, in the hopes that the Haves will help the Have Nots have what the Haves have.

The Have Nots concocted a plan to make sure the Haves get to keep what they have--and more--security, stability for less money. But the Haves having been convinced by the Have A Lots that they could lose what they have, didn't want to help the Have Nots to have what the Haves had. The Have Nots have had enough of the lies of the Have A Lots and the Haves. The Have Nots tried to tell the Haves that the Haves may not have what they've always had unless the Have Nots can have what the Haves have. But the Haves became deaf to the warnings of the Have Nots that the Have A Lots didn't really care if the Haves lost what they have. This made the Have A Lots very happy.

The End. Or is it?

Blogging Invitational--Health Care Reform

Monthly Blog invitational. I will post your thoughts on this blog site related to this topic: the Health Care Reform debate.

I moved this post back to the top of the page to encourage you to take a side. Send me your thoughts by email. I will post them all here.

Send submissions to: mbroute66@charter.net Include your name if you want credit.

Monday, August 17, 2009

First Guest Blogger-- Barry Ritter who writes:
My view is that it is time that we mature, evolve or move forward in thinking our fellow man is worth having health-care. This idea that we become less by helping a person in need is at best bad behavior and at most turning ourselves into gulag Nazis is patently ridiculous. Can we not see that the attitude of the health insurance industry is to make huge unconscionable profits off the back of human suffering and death is certainly barbaric and needs to pass away?

My opinion is that it is time to grow up. Our young nation is woefully behind the world in health care and needs radical change. I voted for President Obama for this reason among others.

Barry Ritter
Comments welcome

Second Guest Blogger--Bill Gruhn

Great idea setting up a blog. Here's my comments.

It still puzzles me why people think we as a collective should provide things people have since primordial times provided for themselves. If you provide people with food and shelter, they don't necessarily become model citizens. Many never provide themselves with anything and their children run amok. Nature has been cruel long before capitalism entered the picture. If you provide healthcare, people will not save and the majority of people are able to provide some kind of insurance for themselves. People in China save 40% of their income because they have no safety net to speak of.

People admire the health plans of European designs but fail to realize that the benefits of welfare states distort the way business is done in those countries. Only large corporations can handle such an environment. America is unique in the number of small businesses it encourages. If you pile up obligations upon them, it will transform how business is done in America and it won't be America any longer.

I favor the conservative idea of restructuring insurance pools among the states and everybody having a health saving account for catastrophic illnesses. Insurance shouldn't be connected with work at all nor need the government be an insurance market. There needs to be a moderate and middle ground between collectivism and self reliance.

Bill Gruhn

From Simmie Berroya McMillan Today at 11:05am

[Personal note deleted]

I'm still not resolved on the issue at hand (health care reform). I can understand the fears of the people. I don't think we've had such a progressive president in such a long time that the people are feeling the rocking of the boat, and it's frightening them. On the other hand, change has been needed for a long time. So, we need these progressive moves if we are to further the cause of the brotherhood of man. The Ultra conservatives want to continue dualistic practices to further their own agenda of the haves vs. the have-nots, the Jews vs. the Arabs, the Christians vs. the non christian, and so on and so forth.

Maybe the answer lies not so much in government intervention, as it does in the health care providers (doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies) willingness to forgo the bottom line enough to show compassion and mercy towards those who have no means to pay for their services. Of course, this would piss off the insurance companies, who I suspect are the real culprits in this matter. Should then, however, the government further regulate the insurance companies? Probably not. I'm sure there are already some regulations in place to protect the consumer. With the consumer already up in arms about the situation, they wouldn't like that either.

Has the government (with Obama at the helm) awakened a sleeping giant here? By the time it's all over, maybe Obama will be sorry he ever brought it to the table. It will be interesting to see who comes out on top.

Simmie
From Sim's World: http://simmcmillan.typepad.com/simsworld/


Not My Words, but...
John Mackey's Campaign Against Single-Payer
Boycott Whole Foods
By RUSSELL MOKHIBER in Counterpunch

John Mackey is a right wing libertarian.
He’s a union buster.
He believes that corporations should not be criminally prosecuted for their crimes.
He has just launched a campaign to defeat a single payer national health insurance system.
And he’s the CEO of Whole Foods.
Primo hangout of liberal Democratic yuppies.
read more: http://www.counterpunch.org/mokhiber08132009.html

Socialized Medicine and All That Jazz

From My Friend Seraph (Miguel Rosada) at Seraph Sayshttp://seraph-says.blogspot.com/ :

Socialized Medicine and All That Jazz
Did you hear they are going to do away with private insurance? What are you going to do when they socialize medicine doc? Whatever will happen if they implement universal health care?

It seems I get these types of questions all the time now as the health care debate continues. I have been hesitant to answer not sure of the particulars of all the plans being thrown around....but upon further thought here it is; When there is health coverage for all ... I will hang my stethoscope and take a day off!

Many health care providers, in cooperation with medical societies, churches and other civic organizations throughout our nation volunteer their time and skills to care for people who fall into the category of uninsured. One such charitable venture is the Oasis clinic, founded by my wife, a concerned nurse. It began over 15 years ago, hosted by our local parish, served by wonderful volunteers throughout the years, a place where countless people who are needy and ill have been treated for free. While it is always a blessing to serve others in the name of Christ, this experience has been quite an eye opener!

The uninsured are not some sort of invisible plague, or a mythical class invoked by liberals in Congress, they are real people for whom the system has failed! Many that we treat in our little clinic work and pay taxes, but are unable to purchase insurance because of prohibitive cost! Even for those who are fortunate enough to work where insurance is offered, the choice is often between health are coverage and food or paying their utilities; no choice at all! Because of this lack of affordable access to even basic care, people often wait despite concerning symptoms, and come to clinic with advanced problems. Some wait until there is no choice but to seek help at a hospital Emergency Room.

Even as we commend all who volunteer, we must acknowledge that the care they are able to offer, though given with competence and caring, is not nearly enough to meet the many needs! While politicians, the rich , the lucky, the elderly and very poor complain about the coverage they do have, our unwillingness to extend that right to others stands out as a stain on our society. The status quo we have lived with keeps people at risk, abuses the good will of people of faith and enables inaction!!!

I am all for choice in health care! Choose your hospitals, have choice for your medications choose your doctor..choose me! However, as I see it, that is hardly the issue in our health care fiasco! The issue is that many have no choice at all; it can not get any worse for them! As far as doctors and others who take of their own time, talent and treasure to help the uninsured, it can only improve!

Maybe, when there is universal health care in our country, doctors can actually get paid for the countless hours of free work, that now goes unpaid and unnoticed! And ...just maybe when I am not working I will not have to give up a well deserved day off!!!Blessings Seraph
Posted by seraph at 11:08 AM

Abortion and Healthcare Reform by factcheck.org

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-is-fabricating/

I received this analysis by email from a friend. What do you think?

Despite what Obama said, the House bill would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally subsidized private plans.
August 21, 2009
Updated: August 25, 2009

Summary
Will health care legislation mean "government funding of abortion"? President Obama said Wednesday that’s "not true" and among several "fabrications" being spread by "people who are bearing false witness." But abortion foes say it’s the president who’s making a false claim. "President Obama today brazenly misrepresented the abortion-related component" of health care legislation, said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee. So which side is right?

The truth is that bills now before Congress don’t require federal money to be used for supporting abortion coverage. So the president is right to that limited extent. But it’s equally true that House and Senate legislation would allow a new "public" insurance plan to cover abortions, despite language added to the House bill that technically forbids using public funds to pay for them. Obama has said in the past that "reproductive services" would be covered by his public plan, so it’s likely that any new federal insurance plan would cover abortion unless Congress expressly prohibits that. Low- and moderate-income persons who would choose the "public plan" would qualify for federal subsidies to purchase it. Private plans that cover abortion also could be purchased with the help of federal subsidies. Therefore, we judge that the president goes too far when he calls the statements that government would be funding abortions "fabrications."


Shared via AddThis

Calvinism and Health Care Reform

As a Catholic, I am to give a preferential option to the poor. I reaffirm this in my baptismal vows whenever I participate in a baptism during Mass. I was thinking that in other Christian practice and thought, the opposite is sometimes true. When looking for links between Calvinism and the poor, I came across a statement by Ron Beasley, "Calvinism was born in Europe, but took root in the United States." Here is his response to my email asking if he thought Calvinism had a direct effect on the health care reform debate:

"Hello MikeI think that many of the inequality issues, including health care, in this country are the result of the strong Calvinist history of this country. You have because you were chosen by God to have and you don't have because God sees you as unworthy. That's why a few rich and powerful Oligarchs are able to control policy in this country and that includes health care. That is also what C-Street is all about except they carry it a bit further - if you were chosen you can do no wrong. This post doesn't directly speak of Calvinism but it does speak of about the Oligarchs who's power is the result of the Calvinist strain in America."

What do you think?

Other reading: Health care and poor relief in Protestant Europe, 1500-1700 By Dr. Andrew Cunningham, Ole Peter Grell

Health Care Issues

Its funny how the Health Care Provider industry suddenly has the ability to reduce their rates and their "take" in the face of a "public option". How is it possible that now hospitals and other providers are willing to negotiate what once was a type of price fixing? If this were any other business, they would be investigated for racketeering. I believe the necessities of life: housing, health care, food, clothing should be carefully guarded from the prospect of greed.

I guess I shouldn't complain since I am a beneficiary of generous donors who have paid off my medical bills which started with a little back pain last year. (see January 6, 2009). I bring this up to ask who knows what it really costs to rent a room for a night at a hospital? What does it really cost to dispense a Tylenol tablet? How much is it to lease an operating room? Who decides how much a small piece of metal to fit in an artery costs? Of course there is also the bigger question once you determine what it truly costs to do these things: What is the cost-benefit analysis?

The escalating cost of health care and the diminishing return leads me to reiterate: Have a Living Will, Health care Directive and/or Proper Power of Attorney. Let your family and anyone else who may be asked by medical professionals, what your wishes are in the event of catastrophic illness or injury.

A Heart...What?

So on December 1, 2008, at the ancient age of 51 I had a heart attack. Of course, that is not the technical medical term. However, that is what it is commonly called.

I was dumbfounded. How could this happen? There is no family history of heart disease. I have good cholesterol levels, better than most, thanks to good genes. I have low-moderate blood pressure when I am not ticked. So how? And why didn't I know it was so common at this age? Why didn't I recognize the symptoms? And why, as life seemed to be ebbing away, did I not experience some spiritual consolation? These and other questions ravage my brain 18/7. I mostly don't think about them or dream about them the other 6 hours of the day.

It started with a nagging back ache between the shoulder blades. I blamed it on the train ride home from Kansas City after being caught in a cold rain. The pain lasted through the day and the weekend. However by December 1st, the pain was growing in intensity. I was trying to determine if I should seek medical attention for a pinched nerve, or whatever it was. Suddenly it became unbearable. The pain seemed to be both in my back and like heartburn in my chest. I took a Pepcid...no relief. I called Teka, who said she was busy and would call me back. I had an uneasiness in the back of my brain, so I took two aspirin and chewed them...just in case. Teka called back and we determined I should go to the hospital.

Saint Louis University Hospital is the closest, so we went there. Upon arriving in the ER, the registration personnel were very determined to get insurance information or the signature of a financially responsible party before they would ask me about my condition. In addition, the guard insisted Teka move the car. I was in no condition to sign. By this time, I was hunched over in pain. Fortunately a doctor passed by who said: "This guy looks like he's having a heart attack. Get him on an EKG!" From there it is about an hour blur. They ran the EKG, put me on a gurney and rushed me through hallways, Cieling lights bliding me along the way, up elevators down more hallways, to an operating room. All the while they asked me questions and were injecting me with a relaxant--Valium, I think. How long had I been in pain? Did I take any medication? Why don't I have health insurance...? Once in the room, two doctors explained what they were going to do: Angiogram, Balloon Angioplasty and possibly a Stent placement. And that is exactly what they did, while I was awake!

After the procedure, one of the doctors looking down at me said, "That aspirin saved your life!", then, the other doctor said (three times), "We saved your life!"

...to be continued.