“Crying Wolf”
We’ve just wrapped up our March 26 issue, but we thought you’d like to see the editorial right away. Our take on the “prolife” push to halt the Senate health-care reform bill is online here.
One needs a good reason to oppose a bill that would cover 30 million uninsured Americans and greatly improve insurance for those who already have it. If the Senate bill did clearly authorize the federal government to pay for elective abortions, prolife Americans might have such a reason. To conclude the bill does this, however, requires one to believe that every ambiguity—every possible complication the bill doesn’t explicitly address—is a ploy by prochoice politicians to sneak abortion funding into the system. President Barack Obama and his party’s leadership have promised the bill won’t be used in this way. Their critics instruct us to presume that they’re lying.
Read the whole thing.
Good editorial, which deserves a circulation well beyond Commonweal’s Constant Readers.
I’ve had the sense all along (and I know this is hardly original with me) that in the health care debate we’re fighting the election of 2008 all over again. There were after all a fair number of interest groups (I won’t name them; easy enough to guess who they are) who opposed vociferously the election of President Obama. Not only did they lose that particular battle, but they were also badly wounded by the fact that many of their faithful followers defected, and not only voted for Obama, but also voted against the advice and guidance of their supposed betters.
Thus it was a blow not only to the political convictions of those supposed betters, but also to their amour propre (perhaps that’s even more galling). So to them, perhaps, 2010 is 2008 redux, and they have another chance to do in the object of their dislike, not to say fear.
And, of course, the Democrats have, as Democrats do, given them some ammunition, e.g., the backroom deal cut for Nebraska, etc. To say nothing of corruption, but that’s another story.
“If the Senate bill does not pass, conservative lobbying groups, most of which are opposed to reform for other reasons, and the bishops conference, which supports reform in theory, will bear some responsibility for it….The Senate bill would give such people the wherewithal to buy insurance that doesn’t cover elective abortion, which means that, in addition to its many other benefits, it would save millions of Americans from having to choose between their conscience and their health.”
A truly superb editorial and worthy of the Commonweal tradition. It reinforces why we do and should support this truly Catholic and responsible magazine.
Talk about begging the question.
“One needs a good reason to oppose a bill that would cover 30 million uninsured Americans and greatly improve insurance for those who already have it.”
What evidence do you have that this bill will “greatly improve insurance”?
Please look at the Massachusetts experiment with this. It has not improved insurance. It has limited people’s choices in insurance, and rates have gone through the roof – way ahead of national averages. Even though most people support the new system, they are also coming to the realization that we can’t continue to afford it.
The only way to “improve insurance” in the long run is to make health care more affordable. This law does absolutely nothing about that except create mechanisms that can create rationing.
Sean: what kind of choice do you have in insurance coverage? I ask because most Americans have no choice. (I’m in that category.) They take what their employers provide. Or they try their luck with expensive individual plans. Have you ever shopped around for medical insurance? Jean Raber has. Ask her how that went. As for your demand for “evidence,” anyone who’s been following the debate knows that if the bill is passed, insurers will no longer be able to drop coverage for patients whose illnesses cost a lot of money, nor will they be able to raise rates on a patient because he gets sick, nor will insurers be able to impose a lifetime benefits limit. That last improvement is especially important for people who are struggling with diseases that require long-term treatments–and surgeries.
Great editorial. Many thanks for laying on the line so effectively.