Chaput’s Strange Sense of Balance
In opposing the current healthcare bill, Denver’s archbishop makes the following argument:
“the health-care reform debate has never been merely a matter of party politics. Nor is it now. Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak and a number of his Democratic colleagues have shown extraordinary character in pushing for good health-care reform while resisting attempts to poison it with abortion-related entitlements and other bad ideas that have nothing to do with real “health care.” Many Republicans share the goal of decent health-care reform, even if their solutions would differ dramatically. To put it another way, few persons seriously oppose making adequate health services available for all Americans. But God, or the devil, is in the details — and by that measure, the current Senate version of health-care reform is not merely defective, but also a dangerous mistake.”
This is strange. If you oppose the Senate bill, then oppose it, and state your reasons for doing so. But I do not understand this desire to stand above the fray and make elaborate “bi-partisan” gestures. Because in this area, the two sides could not be more unequal. Chaput says Republicans “share the goal of decent health-care reform, even if their solutions would differ dramatically”. That may or may not be true. But I can look at what they actually propose in terms of policy, and there the answer is a but more clear – their proposals do next to nothing to reduce the number of uninsured. It’s not that they take a different route to the same endpoint, it’s that they walk around in a circle and end up where they started!
More fundamentally, Abp. Chaput’s main reason for opposing the Senate bill is because of what he regards as defective language on abortion. I think he’s wrong, but that’s not the point I want to make here. The point, rather, is this – on the criteria of promoting abortion, the Republican proposals would be far worse than anything that has emerged from the House and Senate. Why? The Republican health programs are built on three fundamental pillars – tort reform, tax credits to encourage individuals to purchase their own insurance, and letting insurance compete uninhibited for business across state lines. The first doesn’t affect abortion, but the two others do. A huge expansion in tax credits to purchase private plans that cover abortion is tantamount to a huge expansion in the federal subsidization of abortion. And the “across state borders” criterion would effectively gut the Senate provision that allows states to ban insurance plans offering abortion from even accessing the exchanges. Not good. Oh, and I doubt they’re any better on covering immigrants either!
In short, Republican health care plans might not be very good, but they certainly are real. It would be useful to compare them with the Democratic proposals. The devil most certainly is in the details.
Comments are closed.
I don’t think Chaput is endorsing the GOP versions. You’ll note that he doesn’t even bother to bring any of them up for contrast. If anything, I think he’s trying to appeal to Republicans to join Cao in the event there is decent protection against federally-funded abortion in the final bill.
He seems to be arguing the the same line as the USCCB: there is a desire & need for healthcare and we want to get it done, but it cannot come at the expenses of protection for the unborn (or the conscience protection).
Especially now that the Democrats are trying to argue that the bills are essentially the same (which makes one wonder why if true the Dems wouldn’t just happily make the switch to increase the chances of this bill passing), it is important to refer people to the details of the Senate version-details which the bishops have constantly and consistently pointed out leave far too many opportunities for the federal government to fund abortion.
What’s your point? Abp. Chaput isn’t endorsing any republican proposal.
In the excerpt you provided he is not arguing anything. He is just explaining that he is not being partisan in his opposition to the current bill.
Fascinating! Have you notified the archbishop of your arguments.It would be tragic if he spoke or acted on the basis of misinformation.
He could have easily said that, if his 3 concerns were dealt with, he would support this bill wholeheartedly. He did not.
He could have easily said that, if his 3 concerns were dealt with, he would support this bill wholeheartedly. He did not.
He didn’t not say it either.
Generally, it’s a bad idea to commit yourself to language not yet drafted. Still, he makes it clear that the bishops want to see health care reform and he does not bring up the costs as an obstacle. He even praises Stupak for pushing for “good” healthcare reform, which to me suggests that if Stupak got his way Chaput would support the overall bill.
I really don’t know what else you want from him, though I guess he is another one of your poor “bamboozled” bishops who can only think if the NLRC does it for him.
There are two important distinctions to make:
1. Morally sound policy
2. Prudential policy
A policy may be morally sound yet fails at a practical level. A morally defective policy cannot be supported due to its moral defects. Conversley, a policy might be moral yet some could argue in good faith that the policy fails at a practical level.
“But I can look at what they actually propose in terms of policy, and there the answer is a but more clear – their proposals do next to nothing to reduce the number of uninsured.”
That is your evaluation of their policies. Chaput is simply pointing out that both sides want to reform the system. He is not saying that both sides have the same outcomes.
What he IS arguing is that the bill is morally defective, and therefore cannot be supported by Catholics.
“A huge expansion in tax credits to purchase private plans that cover abortion is tantamount to a huge expansion in the federal subsidization of abortion.”
No. Tax credits give the money back to the people to purchase insurance plans. That money came from the people who paid the taxes in the first place. Although I would be happy to argue that those credits must only be used to purchase plans that exclude abortion. If you want to make that argument I have no problem. :-)
The Republican position is that thwarting health care reform will provide them greater benefit than any benefit they would receive by coming to a compromise. That is the simple truth. I understand the Archbishop wants to fashion himself as giving Solomon like wisdom, but the world in which Republicans are working on a compromise that will be signed into law by President Obama isn’t the one we’re occupying. The archbishop wanting to have his own facts is a common theme in this column. And if he doesn’t want to seen as a partisan tool, he should stop acting like one. The fruit of his demagoguery is going to be the lessening of his own reputation and that of the rest of the bishops.
“The archbishop wanting to have his own facts is a common theme in this column.”
Care to back that up?
That is your evaluation of their policies.
No, it’s the CBO’s evaluation.
Tax credits give the money back to the people to purchase insurance plans. That money came from the people who paid the taxes in the first place.
Again no, a subsidy makes it relatively cheaper for you to purchase something, and whether it is done on the tax or expenditure side is immaterial.
MZ:
I think you’re right. Chaput definitely showed himself to be a partisan tool for the GOP, which is why he praised Democrats like Stupak. It’s a common tactic of partisans to praise members of the other party. /sarcasm
Really, the quickness with which members of this blog have turned to stab the bishops in the back after so many years of defending them on issues like the iraq war and healthcare is astounding.
You know it is really tiresome to see Stupak used as a fig leaf. Just because he places Stupak in front of him, that doesn’t mean he isn’t nakedly partisan.
“No, it’s the CBO’s evaluation.”
CBO also pointed out that the Senate bill double counts the “savings” from Medicare. Appealing to them doesn’t make any bill look good. :-)
“Again no, a subsidy makes it relatively cheaper for you to purchase something, and whether it is done on the tax or expenditure side is immaterial.”
Subsidy != tax credit. And a subsidy comes from tax money, so you are basically paying twice.
The fundamental difference is one of philosophy. Is federal money the government’s? Or the people? Is it a government resource? Or was it legally stolen (to put it in stark terms) from private citizens?
The perspective is the key.
“Really, the quickness with which members of this blog have turned to stab the bishops in the back after so many years of defending them on issues like the iraq war and healthcare is astounding.”
It is interesting how single issue voting is now acceptable, at least when it comes to health care.
“You know it is really tiresome to see Stupak used as a fig leaf. Just because he places Stupak in front of him, that doesn’t mean he isn’t nakedly partisan.”
I reiterate my call for evidence.
The fundamental difference is one of philosophy. Is federal money the government’s? Or the people? Is it a government resource? Or was it legally stolen (to put it in stark terms) from private citizens?
Colin,
The Catholic Church has something to say on this issue:
‘But whom do I treat unjustly,’ you say, ‘by keeping what is my own?’ Tell me, what is your own? What did you bring into this life? From what did you receive it? It is as if someone were to take the first seat in the theater, then bar everyone else from attending, so that one person alone enjoys what is offered for the benefit of all in common — this is what the rich do. They seize common goods before others have the opportunity, then claim them as their own by right of preemption. For if we all took only what was necessary to satisfy our own needs, giving the rest to those who lack, no one would be rich, no one would be poor, and no one would be in need.
St. Basil the Great
Colin,
A civics lesson.
When there were Kings all things belonged to the king. He took money from the people and used it as he saw fit. That is legal theft.
The United States is a democracy (a representative one). We The People form our government, we decide to band together and pool our resources, we decide as a group what to do with them. We may not all agree with any one decision we make as a group, but we decide together through our representatives. Any time we decide we can elect different representatives. I certainly did not agree with the Iraq war, I agreed even less with deciding to have our children and grandchildren fund it. But this is what we decided (both actions, the war itself and the decision not to raise the needed funds to pay for it through taxation, were overwhelmingly supported by the people).
I wish people would acknowledge this and stop acting as if our government is some strange body the people have no control over. The best example of the top of my head of the control the people have was the tax cuts instituted under President Reagan. Tip O’Neal, the speaker of the house at the time, strongly disagreed with the tax cuts, he felt they would hurt the country. After the president gave a speech and Rep. O’Neal returned to his office his phones were ringing with overwhelming support for the tax cuts from his constituents, he voted for them.
When we accept control of our government we can make it do what we want, when we refer to it as “they” and treat it as foreign to us, we will give up and let it become the evil we think it to be.
David,
Catholic social teaching holds that public policy must respect both the common good AND the dignity of the individual. Indeed, your citations are right in the middle of the two extremes I cited. The CCC upholds the right of ownership. It neither says the right of ownership is exclusive nor does it say that political authority is the means by which those resources reach the common good.
That is what lies at the heart of the argument. Pro Senate bill folks say it is a necessary redistribution of common resources. Those who disagree do so on the grounds that it violates the dignity of the individual, which also must be respected.
MM, would you actually prefer if the Bishop were to be partisan?
MZ,
I seem to remember that the Discalced Yooper used to talk about how we should have more respect for bishops.
Chaput is not a partisan tool. He was, in this context speaking to his flock in the diocesan newspaper, where he has also gon on at length talking about our bligations to help the poor, our obligations to defend immigrants and our obnligations to seek peace. He has employed registered Democrats to represent the Church in Colorado at the State Legislature, and defended our Democratic Governor’s privledge of having a special inaguration mass in spite of republican opposition.
If he praises Bart Stupak (the representative of the UP), perhaps it is because he is one of the most consistently Catholic members of Congress. I’ve not hear him offer similar praise of Sam Brownback.
Minion,
A “huge expansion in tax credits” does not mean that people “will purchase plans that cover abortions.” And, changing the law to increase competition among health insurance providers across state lines does not mean that provisions can’t be made to comply with states’ wishes that abortion not be covered. Really, the Senate could just leave this part of it alone and the states can make laws as they see fit -if these laws aren’t already on the books. (BTW, tax credits alone, if done right, could cover all of the uninsured AND satisfy the massive dissatisfaction with the current plan which changes *everyone’s* health care.)
Honestly, it looks as if you’re wildly grasping to defend the democratic party at all costs. You’re even willing to malign the intents of a bishop, without just cause to boot. Unbelievable.
Minion,
I just re-read your post and realized that I conflated your post with some of the other comments. You did not malign the intents of the bishop. I retract the statement. My apologies.