27168077
The New York Times reported last week a growing number of Roman Catholic bishops have turned against the president’s health-care reform. What is so disappointing is the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops had lobbied for three decades, according to the Times, for universal health care only to see leaders such as Cardinal Justin Rigali speak out against it.
What’s worse is the cardinal and those bishops who agree with him are echoing the false claims of the far right in voicing their opposition. They cite non-existent abortion coverage and the "rationing" of health care as the essential reasons for undercutting efforts to provide a universal program the Church has called "a fundamental issue of human life and dignity."
Let us be clear about the abortion issue. I could understand Cardinal Rigali’s opposition if the proposed reform forced Catholics to support the funding of abortions, but it emphatically does not. The Times indicated the House health-care legislation would allow the secretary of health and human services decide whether a planned government insurance program (otherwise known as "the public option") would cover abortions. However, if a private or public plan covered abortions "it would be required to segregate its government subsidies from its patients’ premium payments so that no taxpayer money would pay for the procedure." The Times points out many states do much the same when abortion is covered under Medicaid. In addition, it’s likely in the competitive marketplace that would be established under this plan a concerned Catholic would have the freedom to choose a plan that refused to cover abortions.
Apparently, despite these safeguards, Cardinal Rigali has called this division of funds an "illusion." He argues for the ban on funding for abortions currently in the federal employees benefit program (disclosure — this columnist is a member of such a plan). But why should someone who doesn’t agree with the Church’s stance be denied a legal procedure, especially in the instance when taxpayer funds are not paying for that procedure?
As far as the concern about rationing health care, the cardinal and his colleagues should be aware private health insurance currently rations your care. It also has the ability to deny coverage in the case of a pre-existing condition. The Rev. Douglas Clark of Savannah, Ga., has it right.
He is quoted in the same article we currently ration "health care on the basis of wealth." It should be noted Cardinal Rigali’s views are not necessarily the same as all Catholics or even important groups, such as Catholic Charities and the Catholic Health Association, which according to the report, endorsed the plan without reservations. And Clark points out the pope’s encyclical just last month cited the "evils of global economic inequality."
There are currently about 47 million Americans without health insurance, many of them poor. No other industrialized country can make this sorry claim. The Church has long been an outspoken advocate for the poor. Can it win the battle with the more conservative elements within it to help support universal health care in America that has been such a long time in coming? Can it calm the fears of those who see forced abortion coverage where there isn’t any and believe in phony "death panels"? Or will it be scared into retreat on this important moral issue? Will it be able to overcome the hysteria of those within its midst who parrot the distortions of high-paid right-wing radio talk mongers?
In addition, estimates are 20,000 Americans die needlessly every year because they cannot afford insurance nor prescriptions their doctor ordered. That’s 55 Americans every day. And no one seems to care. Apparently not Cardinal Rigali, either.
I hate to question the motives of any with whom I disagree, but you have to wonder when a Bishop Nickless of Sioux City is quoted in the Times as writing, "Any legislation that undermines the vitality of the private sector is suspect." I don’t know Bishop R. Walker Nickless, but how do you square his blind belief in the virtues of private health insurance companies with Church doctrine? Does he know what it is like to be denied affordable health care? Has he and the others bothered to delve any further into the myths and scare tactics they have swallowed so heartily? Before turning their backs on those in need of coverage, have any of these bishops bothered to check their moral compass lately? Have they bothered to expose their misguided ideals to the realities of the real world? Do they ever have to visit a crowded emergency room to obtain medical care?
Instead of supporting the best idealism of the Church, Cardinal Rigali and these bishops have succumbed to their unfounded, dark fears. Hopefully, idealism will win out.
