Good piece in today's New York Times.

As recently as July, the bishops conference had largely embraced the presidents goals, although with the caveat that any health care overhaul avoid new federal financing of abortions. But in the last two weeks some leaders of the conference, like Cardinal Justin Rigali, have concluded that Democrats efforts to carve out abortion coverage are so inadequate that lawmakers should block the entire effort.Others, echoing the popular alarms about rationing, contend that the proposals could put a premium on efficacy that could penalize the chronically ill.No health care reform is better than the wrong sort of health care reform, Bishop R. Walker Nickless of Sioux City, Iowa, declared in a recent pastoral letter, urging the faithful to call their members of Congress.In a diocesan newspaper column this week, Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver agreed, saying the proposal was not only imprudent; its also dangerous.

Here's Chaput'scolumn. And you can find Nickless's right here.More from Kirkpatrick:

Mr. Obama has said the health care overhaul should preserve the current policy that federal money not pay for elective abortions, and congressional Democrats say they are trying to do that. House health care legislation would allow the secretary of Health and Human Services to decide whether a proposed government insurance program would cover abortions. But any health insurance plan that does cover abortion whether government-run or private would be required to segregate its government subsidies from its patients premium payments so that no taxpayer money would pay for the procedure. And all patients would have the choice of plans that do and do not cover it.House Democrats say many states similarly segregate federal money when they cover abortion under Medicaid. But abortion opponents say they take as a model the federal employees benefits program, which excludes health plans that cover abortion.

Kirkpatrick's kicker is rather astounding:

The Catholic Church does not teach that government should directly provide health care, Bishop Nickless of Sioux City wrote, adding, Any legislation that undermines the vitality of the private sector is suspect.

[Update: Actually, Nickless wrote, "Any legislation that undermines the viability of the private sector is suspect." Many thanks to Todd and to other readers for pointing out that error, along with a couple of others--one of which was acknowledged in an August 29 correction to the online version of the article. Regrettably, the correction restates the exaggerated lead--yes, there is a minority of bishops who have vocally opposed the Democrats' health-care plans, but whether their number is growing remains to be seen. But it does admit that the original version of the article "overstated the support of Catholic Charities and the Catholic Health Association for the president's plans." The groups, the correction explains, have opposed legislation that would use federal money to pay for abortions or force workers to participate in providing abortions.]Of course, the proposal is not for the government to directly provide health care to everyone. It's to create a public health-insurance option that people could purchase (subsidies would help those who couldn't pay for either private or public insurance plans).Nickless goes on to say, sounding remarkably like an Acton Institute employee: "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." Government monopoly? Patient choice? Does the bishop understand that in several states insurers operate virtual monopolies? Or that many Americans have no choice when it comes to health insurance? That they take what they can get or else they go broke--or they can't get it, suffer a catastrophic illness, and break the rest of us? Are we to believe that the profit motive is better than "bureaucratic standards"? Is that church teaching too?Be sure to read Mark Silk's smart take on the article:

As I've pointed outhere, the pope's encyclical teaches that food, drinkable water, "basic instruction and elementary health care" are all "elementary and basic rights." Sure there's politics and prudential judgment involved in determining the best way to provide people with health care, but so is there in determining the best way to provide people with food and drinkable water and breathable air.