Comments on: USCCB and Healthcare

By: Kurt

Kurt — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 16:56:36 +0000

IS it? Yes. Has anyone read it? Yes. Have the committees consolidated their bills? We have the goalposts. Regardless of the resolution of the outstanding issues, the feature of subsidarity is there. If it’s subsidiarity, why is is enacted at the federal level (directing everyone else)? There is a limited role for the federal government. There is a role for individuals and families. There is a role for the states. There is a role for the insurers, employers, employees, health care providers and faith based and other non-profits. Subsidarity. Each social organ playing its proper role.

By: Cindy

Cindy — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:04:11 +0000

Ronald, I would have to agree with you. Also if you look at the bible there is the idea of ‘gleanings’. When you harvest your field, don’t reap the entire field. Leave the corners unharvested so that the leftovers–the gleanings–can be gathered by the poor.
A very beautiful and compassionate rule. Some have even called this the first welfare system. In the Bible no less.
Why would this not be a shared responsiblity?

By: Ronald King

Ronald King — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 01:35:33 +0000

If we think of it not being economically feasible then isn’t our thinking being conformed to the way of the world? Thus, we then set up expectations based on our conditioning and God’s input is negated.

By: TeutonicTim

TeutonicTim — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 01:34:54 +0000

The President’s plan IS designed around subsidiarity, with a very limited role for the federal government and a significant role for providers, individual choice, workplace communities and the private sector.

IS it? Has anyone read it? Have the committees consolidated their bills? If it’s subsidiarity, why is is enacted at the federal level (directing everyone else)? Is it even the Presidents bill? He isn’t guiding anyone, just saying get it done.

By: Gerald L. Campbell

Gerald L. Campbell — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 23:34:32 +0000

“This paradigm should be a norm for every division of the Church that employs people…”

A single payer system would take care of all that inequity. Health care should be a function of shared responsibility.

By: Gerald L. Campbell

Gerald L. Campbell — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 23:31:51 +0000

Ronald,

I have a simple answer to your question. No one believes in shared responsibility which is what I would think insurance would or should be. Insurance is tied to the individual and a set of experiences that set that individual off against the others.

Instead of insurance, we have a system that M.Z. accurately describes and then we proceed to call it insurance.

To me, it is nothing more than gaming the system for the benefit of profit.

I find the same detestable process with automobiles. Where’s the shared responsibility?

By: M.Z.

M.Z. — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 22:24:46 +0000

The short answer is that it isn’t economically feasible. The slightly longer answer is that there is no perfect way to price health care and plans. Different benefit structures will tend to attract different demographics. It isn’t like home insurance where a 70-year-old widow is going to want substancially the same thing as a 22-year-old newly wed woman. What happens in health insurance when two pools can co-exist between two companies is that one group turns out to be lower risk than the other. As claims experience builds, premiums on the high risk group increases causes lower risk members of that group to join the other group. As you probably surmise, this becomes a feedback loop until the higher risk pool is bankrupted.

By: Ronald King

Ronald King — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 21:50:58 +0000

Why doesn’t the church develop a healthcare plan made available to anyone?

By: Kurt

Kurt — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 01:40:59 +0000

Tim,

They are not saying they necessarily don’t. The bill favorably addresses the points they have raised.

By: TeutonicTim

TeutonicTim — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 01:34:25 +0000

They’re not saying they necessarily support the bills put forward, they’re saying for voters to include or exclude provisions as they see fit.

The bulleted goals don’t need to be fulfilled by the federal government, this matter is much better suited by subsidiarity, and charity as healthcare has been for centuries prior to government getting involved within the past 40 years.

By: ockraz

ockraz — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:46:08 +0000

My eyes were playing tricks on me. When I read the statement the 1st time, I thought it said ‘illegal’ immigrants because I assumed that that was the stand that they’d take. David Nickol’s comment had me go back and check to be sure- it does (surprisingly) say “legal” immigrants. Hmmmm.

By: Kurt

Kurt — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 20:21:17 +0000

Zach,

No point for the bishops to wish to ban federal funding of abortion. The Democrats have already beat them to it and done it. It might be said the bishops would like to keep the current ban on federal funding.