K.C. bishops: health-care reform? Go slowly.
(After writing this I realized Dave Gibson already posted on the statement. But, because my post does something a bit different from his, I’m leaving it up.)
Via John Allen: Archbishop Naumann of Kansas City in Kansas and Bishop Joseph Finn of Kansas City-St. Joseph have released a “Joint Statement on Principles of Catholic Social Teaching and Health Care Reform.” Allen’s nut grafs:
Opening a new front in official Catholic reaction to health care reform, the two bishops of Kansas City have issued a joint pastoral statement warning not only against an expansion of abortion or mandatory end-of-life counseling, but also the dangers of “excessive centralization” and “government socialization” of medicine.
Experts say that the critique goes beyond pronouncements offered by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, or by other American prelates, which typically have called for preserving “pluralism” in health care but otherwise seem neutral, or even favorably inclined, to new government initiatives.
The bishops identify several problems with the U.S. health-care system, including the 47 million uninsured, the rising costs of health care, the state of the Medicare trust fund, and the fact that people with preexisting conditions are often denied insurance coverage.
But, the bishops write, the American way of health care also has strengths. To wit: “Most Americans like the medical care services available to them. Our country, in some ways, is the envy of people from countries with socialized systems of medical care.” And don’t forget, “85 percent of citizens in the U.S. do have insurance.” Sure, 47 million may be uninsured, but, the bishops write, a 2007 Kaiser Commission study showed that 11 million of them were “eligible to receive care through SCHIP or Medicaid, but were not enrolled.” And, hey, competition works; the market produces innovation! “Doctors and other scientists immigrate to our country because of the better compensation given to those who provide quality medical care or produce successful research.” And the final strength of the U.S. system listed by the bishops: Medicare and Medicaid work–despite their limitations.
The bishops argue that while many claim we must change the U.S. health-care system,
change itself does not guarantee improvement. Many of the proposals which have been promoted would diminish the protection of human life and dignity and shift our health care costs and delivery to a centralized government bureaucracy. Centralization carries the risk of a loss of personal responsibility, reduction in personalized care for the sick and an expanded bureaucracy that in the end leads to higher costs.
Naumann and Finn lean on the much-abused principle of subsidiarity to drive home the idea that health-care decisions are best made at the local level. And that principle, according to Naumann and Finn, rests on the dignity of the human person. So, you can see where they’re going: no to any bill that federally funds abortions, no to any bill that attacks the conscience protections of health-care workers. Actually, no to any bill that doesn’t “clearly articulate the rights of conscience for individuals and institutions.”
Without using the term “death panels,” the bishops call for any health-care reform to exclude “mandated end-of-life counseling for the elderly and the disabled.” They refer to a statement from the National Association of Pro-Life Nurses that argues such counseling “would place undue pressure on the individual or guardian to opt for measures to end life, and would send the message that they are no longer of value to society.” They don’t provide an argument for that claim.
Naumann and Finn approvingly cite Bishop Nickless, who “commented on the dangers inherent in the establishment of a health care monopoly, drawing a comparison to the experience of HMO plans in our country, where individuals entrusted with keeping the cost of health care at a minimum may refuse to authorize helpful or necessary treatment for their clients.” To which they add:
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.
True enough, as far as it goes. But, again, who is proposing “socialized medicine”? And to what extent is personal responsibility limited by the realities of the health-care market in the United States?
We must find a way to provide a safety net for the needy, according to Bishops Naumann and Finn. But “safety nets are not intended to create permanent dependency for individuals or families upon the State, but rather to provide them with the opportunity to regain control of their own lives and their own destiny.”
Finally, Naumann and Finn deploy an argument I don’t recall seeing from a Catholic bishop: “A hasty or unprincipled change could cause us, in fact, to lose some of the significant benefits that Americans now enjoy, while creating a future tax burden which is both unjust and unsustainable.”
Tags: Bishop Robert Finn
See this piece: http://paulsurlis.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/truth-about-health-care-reform/
F.Y.C. (consideration)- http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=52896
Note that these bishops enjoy excellent health insurance and health care, paid for by others. And they have no children.
Are Bishops Naumann and Finn aware that, according the current Cia world Factbook, US have the worst infant mortality rate among all the Western Countries?
Does that infant mortality statistic include abortions?
If not, I would imagine that with abortions added in, our infant mortality would among be the highest in the western Countires
See my blog entry below on D. Gibson’s post. Their list of US insurance carrier and medical system successes pick and choose and, in fact, do not convey the real issues that are tearing our current healthcare system apart.
They completely miss the fact that all current uninsured go to the ER in an emergency and the tax payer, government, county, hospital pays for this.
They are taking the 1960′s end poverty/welfare message and congressional actions which created an almost permanent sub-culture of welfare and paralleling that with current healthcare reform debates. Sorry, making it possible for all citizens to have basic healthcare coverage is not setting up a permanent welfare culture. ????
Yes, this will cost money but the US can figure out how to do this without calling the 47 million uninsured – welfare insurance folks? They barely address the fact that the current, free market set up means that insurance comes via employment. That is not the gospel message?
They seem to live in fear of any type of government option; yet, at the same time, skip over the fact that they cite the successful Medicare, Medicaid, CHIPs, etc. programs (they sure aren’t private).
Yes, any huge change such as the US is considering will probably result in some over reaching, some debt, etc. but does that justify doing nothing. They cite want needs to be done but do not explain how that will be paid for; and do not explain how that will not provide coverage for 47 million uninsured and another 25 million underinsured.
When was the last time a U.S. Bishop found it necessary to oppose a position that has been endorsed by NO ONE!!! There has never been an endorsement of mandatory end of life counseling, rather, it has been included in some proposals as something that woudl be covered by insurance, and is already covered by some insurance programs.
The Republican uber-strategy vis-a-vis Obama and the 2010 elections is to defeat health care. How much more transparent can these bishops be in their efforts to promote this strategy?
“…with abortions added in…”
…we’d be comparing apples and oranges.
The story to which Fr. O’Leary refers us above makes the claim that the proposals being offered by the Democrats simply continue the status quo, and confirm the suspicion engendered in me by the fact that the pharmaceutical industry has endorsed the Obama plan. Does anyone have a plan to offer that might really work? Please!?
And the good bishops remind us, “Centralization carries the risk of a loss of personal responsibility.” They also fret about a “centralized government bureaucracy.”
For a moment, I thought Naumann and Finn were describing the state of the Church of Rome.
Fr. K – there is no Obama plan. Currently, on the table, are three congressional plans and two in the Senate committees.
Obama has presented an outline and principles that he wants to guide a final healthcare reform bill.
Big Pharma has met Democrats part way by offering $80 billion ….realize that this is part of the executive/congressional approach to gain some type of support from current pharmacy and insurance companies. In reality, Bush and his Medicare, Part B pharmacy program was a catastrophe in terms of cost overruns, debt, and ease of access. Too many options in terms of plans and too many seniors facing a doughnut hole.
Big Pharma may have offered this compromise but $80 billion is less than the increase they will see in 2010 for overall drug spend. It actually is only a token offer on their part. You can be assured that behind the scenes they are pushing for, at worst, a watered down final bill; at best; a bill that changes nothing in terms of for profit pharma.
Next week, you will start to see a defined plan from Obama and from the congressional committees – they will have to abandon all efforts with the Republicans and ram this through.
Without the abortion crutch the American bishops and the Republican party are at zero. This issue covers or masks all their deficiencies.
if the pharmos gain 47.000.000f customers, they can afford to reduce prices. Is is pssible that their profits might ncrease? If so, it would be in their nterest to support reform.
Their dream, Ann, is for a health-care bill that mandates coverage for all Americans but fails to provide a public option that would force real competition into the market, driving prices down.
If infant mortality is high is it any wonder that parents have recourse to abortion? — a much less painful procedure than watching your child die after birth. The bishops should do social analysis of the factors leading to abortion, as the French bishops attempted in the 1970s.
On infant mortality – this is a spurious issue for many reasons.
First, all countries keep there own statistics and all of them have different ways of counting. Many industrial nations treat perinatal deaths – occuring immedicately at birth – as still births that don’t count in their infant mortality stats. Do you really think Japan’s mortality rate is three times less than the US and at least half that of other countries?
Second, this does not account for social/lifestyle differences. The second leading cause of infant death in the US is premature and low birth weight unrelated to any other disease or defect – read alcohol or drug use or early teen pregnancy. Probably as important is that fact that the US has one of the highest average maternal ages in the world with more women having children after the age of 35 – the UK is similar in this respect and has an infant mortality rate about the same. The infant mortality rate for older mothers is significantly higher than younger mothers.
Finally, how does the infant mortality rate correlate in any direct way to universal heal insurance? Are you claiming that babies die because they are born outside of the hospital? When you get down to it, that is the biggest reason that industrialzed and unindutrialized countries have such different stats. Even without universal health insurance virtually every baby born in the US is born in a medical facility with professional medical care.
Bill D. is right there is no one current plan.
J>peter, I think ,in the thread above laysd out the 4 major principles of Catholic social thought.
The shape of what’s to come, if anything, will be shaped, in my opinion, in the Senate and Senator Collins will play a big role if any bipartisanship is 9per imposible) possible.
I think we’re seeing a mdicum of movemen tto wards intelligent discussion of an issue in need of urgen taction.
While the “tea Party” group came through Albuquerque yesterday and drew 300 or so(ab event played up on the local FOX news channel), a real debate with civility took place last nigh tunder the aegis of the non-partisan rio Grande Association with terrific coverage on our local public radio station this morning.
It seems clear to me that the KC Bishops should ber in cohort with the Tea Party group and given as much weigh tas they.
It’s sad they can’t contribute to what should be a vital debate in a meaningful way.
Follow up to my statements about BIG PHARMA – released today to national news:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090902/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_pfizer_settlement
Highlights: Federal prosecutors hit Pfizer Inc. with a record-breaking $2.3 billion in fines Wednesday and called the world’s largest drug maker a repeating corporate cheat for illegal drug promotions that plied doctors with free golf, massages, and resort junkets.
Announcing the penalty as a warning to all drug manufacturers, Justice Department officials said the overall settlement is the largest ever paid by a drug company for alleged violations of federal drug rules, and the $1.2 billion criminal fine is the largest ever in any U.S. criminal case. The total includes $1 billion in civil penalties and a $100 million criminal forfeiture.
Authorities called Pfizer a repeat offender, noting it is the company’s fourth such settlement of government charges in the last decade. The allegations surround the marketing of 13 different drugs, including big sellers such as Viagra, Zoloft, and Lipitor.
We call this business as usual – find it with all big pharmas and all big medical carriers.
“Back in the day” when I was still employed at a VAMC, I walked down to our Mental Health Service to take care of some HR business. A supervisor invited me to join him and staff for a “free lunch.” A pharmaceutical firm picked up the tab — from The Olive Garden. A good lunch! A few years later, while I was involved in a support group for divorced/widowed/separated, I met a lady who owned a sandwich shop. She said much (if not most?) of her lunch trade came from pharmaceutical reps.
As a recipient (of a free lunch), I want to thank each and everyone of you from my pea-pickin’ heart — er, my tummy :)
(Not to complain, but I got a Viagra pen that was not refillable — unlike a friend who had a fancy Viagra pen that was refillable :)
Whenever I see pharmaceutical reps carrying/pulling their “goodies” bags, I have always asked if they have any Tootsie Roll Pops or other sweet stuff. Invariably, they reply “No” and I walk away disappointed. Apparently I’ve been in the wrong buildings — no pediatricians!