CHA again steps forward to remind us of health reform's benefits

Sr. Carol Keehan, DC, President of the Catholic Health Association (CHA) reminds us that the Affordable Care Act is providing new or better insurance coverage to children, young adults, seniors and small business owners:

The Catholic health ministry worked hard to enact this law because it would defend life and human dignity, provide health care access to vulnerable persons and hard-working families and reflect the values of a fair and compassionate nation. In large measure, the law is already achieving these important goals.

Just a few examples of how provisions in the ACA are helping Americans right now:

• At least 3 million young adults (under the age of 26) have been able to stay on their parents’ insurance plan.
• Some 54 million people of all ages have received free or preventive services like mammograms, colonoscopies, physical exams and cholesterol screenings.
• At least 3.6 million seniors have saved $2.1 billion on their prescription drugs, an average of $600 per senior.
• More than 50,000 people with serious illnesses have obtained coverage through state high-risk plans put in place by ACA.
• Small businesses across the country have received tax credits to help offset the cost of providing coverage to their employees.

The law also includes funding for states to develop programs that assist pregnant and parenting women. The funds grant women access to a network of supportive services that can help them complete high school or postsecondary degrees and gain access to health care, child care, family housing and services for those who are victims of domestic or sexual violence .The ACA’s provisions for pregnant and parenting women have often been lost in the clutter of coverage but represent pro-life policies that CHA strongly supported as the law was being written.

In 2014, additional parts of the law will take effect, beginning with state-based health insurance exchanges where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for affordable health insurance policies. Those who qualify for subsidies will receive help paying premium costs. Medicaid will expand to cover more people who do not currently qualify for the program but also can’t afford insurance on their own.

For low-income families, and for the hospitals and other providers that treat them, Medicaid is a lifeline – a crucial program that connects vulnerable persons with the medical and preventive care they need.

These benefits are for the CHA, and were from the beginning intended to be, a reflection of Catholic religious values:

In 2007, CHA collaborated with our members across the country to develop a set of principles outlining our expectations for health reform. That document, “Our Vision for U.S. Health Care,” drew inspiration from Catholic social teaching and named the core values of human dignity, concern for the poor and vulnerable, justice, the common good and stewardship as the optimal foundation of a system that “creates and sustains a strong, healthy national community.”

The document included six principles for a smart and equitable health care system, starting with 100% access, and it became an advocacy tool for CHA and our members. In 2010, we published an updated version of the document, “Realizing Our Vision for U.S. Health Care” to show how the ACA corresponds with most of the expectations we had named.

This is in refreshing contrast with those among the Catholic Bishops and evangelical protestants who have been busy trying to cripple health reform, rather than celebrating its benefits.

[H/T dotCommonweal]

Stupak reflects on the misuse of abortion against health reform

Rep. Bart Stupak explains in Newsweek his disappointment over the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' reaction when he asked their support for "an executive order confirming that no federal money would support abortion:"

No, no, no, no, they said. We need statutory law. But an executive order can have the full force of law, I said. Lincoln used one to free the slaves. George W. Bush used one to block stem-cell research using human embryos. And President Obama assures me that this is "ironclad." Besides, I said, it's time to negotiate or lose our chance to shape the bill. Help me with it? No, they said. Won't you at least look at it? No.

That call changed my relationship with the pro-life movement. In the 18 years I've been in Congress, pro-life Democrats like me have delivered, working out compromises that protect human life. Now we had the most important piece of legislation for our movement yet—with pregnancy prevention, prenatal and postnatal care, and care for kids—and we couldn't get support.

That, from his time in "health care hell,' is ultimately what hurt the most. He said:

It's that people tried to use abortion as a tool to stop health-care reform, even after protections were added.

Addendum

Mark Silk, commenting on the same piece, certainly gets it right:

Stupak accuses bishops ... of using abortion to oppose health care reform.

In honor of Sister Carol

Sr. Carol Keehan, Daughter of Charity and leader of the Catholic Health Association, earned in many ways her place among those named in the 2010 Time 100.

Her vow to serve the poor brought her to the support of health reform at a critical juncture, writing, “The time is now for health reform.” And answering the tide of false claims that health reform was a path to publicly funded abortion:

The insurance reforms will make the lives of millions more secure, and their coverage more affordable. The reforms will eventually make affordable health insurance available to 31 million of the 47 million Americans currently without coverage.

CHA has a major concern on life issues. We said there could not be any federal funding for abortions and there had to be strong funding for maternity care, especially for vulnerable women. The bill now being considered allows people buying insurance through an exchange to use federal dollars in the form of tax credits and their own dollars to buy a policy that covers their health care. If they choose a policy with abortion coverage, then they must write a separate personal check for the cost of that coverage.

Among the true things Time proclaimed:

Undeterred by her critics, she refused to back down as she fought for reforms that would include prenatal and maternity care and coverage for uninsured children. She fought for those who couldn't fight for themselves.

We turn to the Jesuit magazine America for a practical glimpse of the modesty with which she lives her vows of poverty. Michael Sean Winters writes of the president of the nation's largest not-for-profit network of health care facilities:

Sister Carol then showed me the sisters’ living quarters. She, like all the other nuns, had a small room, like a dorm room, with a small bed, a small desk and one comfortable chair, a devotional book on the table beside it. There was a closet holding half a dozen habits and blouses. This was certainly not how most hospital executives lived. Sister Carol's supreme confidence in discussing any and all aspects of health care management was matched by a complete absence of pride or protocol. You only had to watch her for five minutes as she interacted with the hospital staff to realize that she was as down-to-earth as she was competent, as solicitous of others as she was unafraid to make a decision on her own.

She was also one of some 60 leaders of women religious, representing 59,000 Catholic Sisters, who broke with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to support passage of the Senate health reform bill.

Her clear voice remains an unwavering, truthful answer to those who seek continuously to smear the law as an inroad for immorality, rather than the triumph of Christian charity that it is.

Christian health reform opposition hat

From the Psychology Today essay by Nathan Heflick who [without mentioning Richard Land] wrote:

There are about a zillion verses in the Bible saying we should help the poor, show compassion, be loving (it is the chief virtue right?) etc etc. What I cannot find is a verse where Jesus doesn't help others, or even argues for that. It seems I live in a parellel universe where somehow this equates to "but people who are poor are lazy and shouldn't get our help." Do you really think Jesus would oppose universal healthcare because his taxes would get raised? Really?

Read the rest here.

[H/T: Mainstream Baptist]

Conservative intellectual honesty's sometime price

Sometimes, politics is a religion, and heretics are punished, even when they're right. Former Bush speech writer David Frum laid out in a few words the cause and effect of the Republican health reform loss, and three days afterward, "was forced out of his job at the American Enterprise Institute on Wednesday."

Fundamentally, the voters determined health reform's fate

Nate Silver digs statistically down to the root of it.

He does explore how complex the decision was. Truly complex.

Even so, pull retiring Democratic members of Congress out of the mix. That done, as the chart at right illustrates, and the best predictor of their Sunday votes was "the percentage of the vote that Barack Obama received in each congressional district in 2008.

The voters decided this one, it seems.

Racism and health reform opposition: Protesters scream 'n****r' at black congressman

William Douglas of McClatchy Newspapers reports:

Demonstrators outside the U.S. Capitol, angry over the proposed health care bill, shouted "nigger" Saturday at U.S. Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia congressman and civil rights icon who was nearly beaten to death during an Alabama march in the 1960s.

Chad Pergram of FOXNews.com reports:

Reps. John Lewis, D-Ga., and Andre Carson, D-Ind., both members of the Congressional Black Caucus, allege that a group of protesters hollered at them and called them the N-word.

Brian Beutler of Talking Points Memo reports:

Tea partiers and other anti-health care activists are known to get rowdy, but today's protest on Capitol Hill--the day before the House is set to vote on historic health care legislation--went beyond the usual chanting and controversial signs, and veered into ugly bigotry and intimidation.

Civil rights hero Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) and fellow Congressional Black Caucus member Andre Carson (D-IN) related a particularly jarring encounter with a large crowd of protesters screaming "kill the bill"... and punctuating their chants with the word "nigger."

Standing next to Lewis, emerging from a Democratic caucus meeting with President Obama, Carson said people in the crowd yelled, "kill the bill and then the N-word" several times, while he and Lewis were exiting the Canon House office building.

"People have been just downright mean," Lewis added.

Underlying tensions, unmasked.

Emergent health reform support

Pro-life may win and health reform pass, thanks in no small part to the Women Religious (Catholic nuns), the Catholic Health Association and others who broke with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Perhaps their faith should have been prediction enough. Looking back, though, Nate Silver was very optimistic at midweek.

In the first minutes of this day, the Washington Post and others reported House member shifts into the "yes" column. Similarly, Talking Points Memo, which does this sort of thing very well, found a late change in momentum toward passage as votes changed, one after another, to "yes."

Statements like this by Rep. Dale E. Kildee, an anti-abortion Democrat from Michigan after he decided to support the Senate bill, presaged it all:

I will be 81 years old in September. Certainly at this point in my life, I’m not going to change my mind and support abortion, and I’m not going to risk my eternal salvation.

The nature and strategies of the opposition matter too. Like the Southern Baptist Convention's chief political operative, Richard Land, who again weighed in against health reform. He sent a variation on his earlier error-ridden proclamation in a letter to Republican leaders, and given his gift for sowing confusion about what he means, gave them nothing like a counterbalance for the emergent support.

CHA president's pro-life view of health reform

Sr. Carol Keehan, DC, Catholic Health Association president, addresses health reform concerns, not just for Catholics but also for anyone who is pro-life:

The Sisters stand for life and the enactment of health reform

Some 60 leaders of women religious, representing 59,000 Catholic Sisters, have broken with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to support passage of the Senate health reform bill.

It is a brave act of conscience. They have already called down the Vatican fire of an Apostolic Visitation (investigation), apparently through their efforts to adapt their ministry to modern life. Or other cause. In any event, this departure may be seen as additional provocation, and is not likely to be smiled upon by an increasingly embattled pope. With an average age over 60, however, most of the nuns have endured the bishop-mishandled sex abuse scandal from its inception. Under the circumstances, a failure to respond to bishops with reflexive obedience should be not only forgiven but also applauded.

In a letter, the nuns urged all members of Congress to vote "yes" for the Senate health reform legislation. The heart of the letter is:

We have witnessed firsthand the impact of our national health care crisis, particularly its impact on women, children and people who are poor. We see the toll on families who have delayed seeking care due to a lack of health insurance coverage or lack of funds with which to pay high deductibles and co-pays. We have counseled and prayed with men, women and children who have been denied health care coverage by insurance companies. We have witnessed early and avoidable deaths because of delayed medical treatment.

The health care bill that has been passed by the Senate and that will be voted on by the House will expand coverage to over 30 million uninsured Americans. While it is an imperfect measure, it is a crucial next step in realizing health care for all. It will invest in preventative care. It will bar insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. It will make crucial investments in community health centers that largely serve poor women and children. And despite false claims to the contrary, the Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortions. It will uphold longstanding conscience protections and it will make historic new investments - $250 million - in support of pregnant women. This is the REAL pro-life stance, and we as Catholics are all for it.

Congress must act. We are asking every member of our community to contact their congressional representatives this week. In this Lenten time, we have launched nationwide prayer vigils for health care reform. We are praying for those who currently lack health care. We are praying for the nearly 45,000 who will lose their lives this year if Congress fails to act. We are also praying for you and your fellow Members of Congress as you complete your work in the coming days. For us, this health care reform is a faith mandate for life and dignity of all of our people.

In this endorsement they joined the Catholic Health Association, which, Bold Faith Type observed, "represents 1,200 medical facilities and providers, including 620 hospitals." CHA president Sister Carol Keehan in her letter took a similar stand. She wrote:

CHA has a major concern on life issues. We said there could not be any federal funding for abortions and there had to be strong funding for maternity care, especially for vulnerable women. The bill now being considered allows people buying insurance through an exchange to use federal dollars in the form of tax credits and their own dollars to buy a policy that covers their health care. If they choose a policy with abortion coverage, then they must write a separate personal check for the cost of that coverage.

Both stand on the side of human life and in opposition to misguided zealotry. If there is finally judgment for this, it will not fall on them.

Addendum

Mark Silk suggests that this division within the Catholic Church in America over a matter of public policy is so rare that no similar one can be recalled by well-schooled observers.

Bear in mind that we're talking about the leaders of most of the nation's nuns and Catholic health institutions standing in opposition to the USCCB.

Yes, that is rare.

'Pro-life Rep. Tom Perriello backs Senate bill’s abortion safeguards' [Update]

David Gibson reports pro-life Democrat Virginia Democratic Rep. Tom Perriello says the Senate bill's abortion funding safeguards are as good as the House's.

The take away:

“As health care experts and pro-life leaders agree, the abortion language in the Senate bill upholds the Hyde Amendment standard. The Senate health care bill prevents federal taxpayer dollars from funding abortions, as the Catholic Hospital Association and legal experts have recently stated and as my own research has confirmed.”

Read the rest here.

Update

CNS reported:

U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, [correctly] contradicting both the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and [misguided] members of Congress, said Monday that the Senate health-care bill uses no federal money to pay for health care plans which cover elective abortions.

Richard Land misfires on HCR (again)

His Nazi libels and "death panels" prevarications failed to stop health reform, so Southern Baptist Convention ethics czar Richard Land found other ways to mislead.

In the key passage of last week's email begging Southern Baptists for telephone opposition, he said:

"If this bill passes, it will mean federal funding of abortion, a nearly half-trillion-dollar cut to Medicare, heavy taxes on individuals and businesses, higher premiums, and strong government control that will inevitably lead to a decline in patient care," Land said.

Taking his points in order ...

1. "None" is the amount of "federal funding for abortion" found in an expert assessment by Washington and Lee law professor Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, whom Mark Silk describes as "an ardent pro-lifer who's an expert on abortion and health care."
2. "Senior scare" is what FactCheck.org calls the alleged "half trillion dollar cut to medicare." Pulitzer Prize winning PolitiFact.com is no more complimentary.
3. "Backward" is how he got it in predicting "heavy taxes." Obama's plan "cuts government spending."
4. "Strong government control" like that imposed by the Republican-spawned Massachusetts plan -- RomneyCare, "implemented by former Republican Gov. Mitt Romney?"
5. "Decline in patient care" = more scare words and the opposite is what helped inspired Catholic Health Association President Sr. Carol Keehan, DC to say "it is time for health reform." As Jost explains, the Senate bill provides more care for those who need it worst. Not less.

Srsly, Brother Land.

Catholic Health Association president says it is time for health reform

"The time is now for health reform," Sr. Carol Keehan, DC wrote in Catholic Health World:

As I watched our president present his plan to pass the health reform legislation, it was clear this is an historic opportunity to make great improvements in the lives of so many Americans. Is it perfect? No. Does it cover everyone? No. But is it a major first step? Yes.

The insurance reforms will make the lives of millions more secure, and their coverage more affordable. The reforms will eventually make affordable health insurance available to 31 million of the 47 million Americans currently without coverage.

CHA has a major concern on life issues. We said there could not be any federal funding for abortions and there had to be strong funding for maternity care, especially for vulnerable women. The bill now being considered allows people buying insurance through an exchange to use federal dollars in the form of tax credits and their own dollars to buy a policy that covers their health care. If they choose a policy with abortion coverage, then they must write a separate personal check for the cost of that coverage.

[H/T: CommonWeal]

The Senate abortion-reduction health reform legislation

Not only does the U.S. Senate health reform legislation not subsidize abortion, expert legal analysis [.pdf] tells us.

But also, availability of more accessible health care promises to reduce the number of abortions.

T.R. Reid ["Universal Health Care Tends to Cut the Abortion Rate," Washington Post, 2010.03.14] compared the abortion rate of the United States to the abortion rates of comparable industrial nations which have universal health care, usingUnited Nations data, and found:

The U.N. data measure the number of abortions for women ages 15 to 44. They show that Canada, for example, has 15.2 abortions per 1,000 women; Denmark, 14.3; Germany, 7.8; Japan, 12.3; Britain, 17.0; and the United States, 20.8.

Yes, Britain, where abortion is legal and free. Where "8 percent of the population is Catholic (compared with 25 percent in the United States)." For many reasons, among them better accept to doctor-prescribed contraceptive measures. And as was explained by Cardinal Basil Hume, who when Reid lived in London "was the senior Roman Catholic prelate of England and Wales:"

If that frightened, unemployed 19-year-old knows that she and her child will have access to medical care whenever it's needed, she's more likely to carry the baby to term. Isn't it obvious?

The Senate bill does move us further in that abortion-discouraging direction. For example, it designates more than $7 billion - "$11 billion in the president's amended version" - for Federally Qualified Health Centers, or FQHCs, David Gibson writes as part of a painstaking analysis of the legislation, "to allow them to serve an estimated 15 million more people who do not have adequate health care." Indeed, "last year health centers provided prenatal, perinatal, and post-natal/post-partum care to 1 of every 8 children born in the U.S." Without providing any abortions. None, wrote the National Association of Community Health Centers in a recent letter.

The expert analyst to whom we referred above is Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, who holds the Robert L. Willett Family Professorship of Law at the Washington and Lee University School of Law and is, Mark Silk tells us, "an ardent pro-lifer." Jost said:

"The bottom line is that health care reform is pro-life," Jost said. "We're going to save an awful lot of lives with this bill ... I identify as a Christian, strongly, and I identify as someone who believes in the sacredness of life. I just think this is a pro-life bill. I'm really discouraged that people not only don't want it but also are spreading erroneous information about it. Because I don't think that's something that Christians should do."

Nor do we.

Sanctions deserved if Uganda adopts hate law

The Obama administration should make it clear to Uganda, now, that passage of the anti-gay law will result in a cutoff of aid. That "legislation is a violation of human rights," as Assistant Secretary of State Johnnie Carson said Friday. Embodiment of the hate it represents in law, without answering consequences from more human nations, will encourage others to take similar actions.

Oppression is already a fact of life for the Ugandan gay citizenry. The New York Times wrote in an editorial on Monday:

The government’s venom is chilling: “Homosexuals can forget about human rights,” James Nsaba Buturo, who holds the cynically titled position of minister of ethics and integrity, said recently.

What makes this even worse is that three American evangelical Christians, whose teachings about “curing” gays and lesbians have been widely discredited in the United States, helped feed this hatred. Scott Lively, Caleb Lee Brundidge and Don Schmierer gave a series of talks in Uganda last March to thousands of police officers, teachers and politicians in which, according to participants and audio recordings, they claimed that gays and lesbians are a threat to Bible-based family values.

Now the three Americans are saying they had no intention of provoking the anger that, just one month later, led to the introduction of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009. You can’t preach hate and not accept responsibility for the way that hate is manifested.

The U.S. should also lead diplomatically in standing against this evil.

Ssempa returns video fire at Rick Warren (hits self)

Repudiated Rick Warren friend Martin Ssempa, Pastor of the Makerere Community Church, has issued a video response [segments with analysis] which includes all of the errors and distortions of the earlier United National Task Force letter.

Archbishop of York condemns Ugandan anti-gay bill

Archbishop of York John Sentamu, a senior Anglican cleric who was born in Uganda, approached the celebration of the birth of the Prince of Peace by taking a stand against Uganda's gay genocide bill.

He told BBC:

I'm opposed to the death sentence. I'm also not happy when you describe people in the kind of language you find in this private member's bill. ... [It is] a diminishment of the individuals concerned.

About a third of the Ugandan population considers itself to be affiliated with the Church of Uganda (Anglican).

Sentamu's measured, authoritative voice is an important counter on this issue to the counterfactual, poorly written letter directed by the hastily organized Ugandan National Task Force Against Homosexuality at Saddleback Community Church pastor Rick Warren. The Task Force demanded an apology from Warren, who urged his "fellow pastors in Uganda" to oppose the measure.

About 40% of Uganda's population is Roman Catholic.

Joining Sentamu, Mark Silk writes, was the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kampala, Uganda, Cyprian. K. Lwanga, who in his Christmas message said:

The recent tabled Anti-Homosexuality Bill does not pass a test of a Christian caring approach to this issue.

Video of Archbishop Lwanga's message:

Health reform

Robert Pear wrote

The Senate voted Thursday to reinvent the nation’s health care system, passing a bill to guarantee access to health insurance for tens of millions of Americans and to rein in health costs as proposed by President Obama.

The 60-to-39 party-line vote, on the 25th straight day of debate on the legislation, brings Democrats a step closer to a goal they have pursued for decades.

Bishops are a staple from approving health reform

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops says the Senate version of health reform does not go far enough in limiting abortion.

Howard M. Friedman explains why. He writes:

The Bishops' concern seems to be that under [the current version as amended], abortion coverage will still be in some policies that receive government subsidies, so long as a separate check is written for the part of the premium applicable to that coverage. Instead, according to a Dec. 14 letter from the Bishops, they want language in the House bill that was proposed as an amendment by Sen. Ben Nelson, but was defeated by the Senate. That language provides that no federal funds could be used "to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes abortion coverage." After that loss, Sen. Nelson negotiated the language in the Manager's Amendment and according to AP argued that the differences were "about a staple." By that he means that the disagreement is over whether abortion coverage -- which would be paid for separately in either case -- would be a part of the subsidized policy (not acceptable to the Bishops) or in a separate rider stapled to it (acceptable to the Bishops).

Can we embrace "the common good" and implement health-insurance reform

Republicans, appealing to radical individualism at the expense of the the common good, asked in the weekend radio address on health reform, "Will this improve your life?"

Yet Western religious traditions have strong traditions of pursuing the common good - a moral dimension that is all but lost in the debate. Distinguished university professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University David Gushee wrote for Associated Baptist Press:

The national debate over health-care reform has lost, or never developed, a truly moral focus. It has not been treated as the great moral crusade that it is. To find a way to extend quality health care to 50 million Americans who do not currently have it would be an extraordinary moral victory for this country. But except around the fearful edges of the debate -- “pulling the plug on grandma,” “death panels,” abortion -- the moral case has been muted, shouted down, abandoned or never made.

Paul Moses at DotCommonWeal reminds us that "for Catholics, this [the Republican] question on health care ought to be the wrong one, given our faith’s emphasis on the common good." He refers us to Daniel Callahan, who wrote in the Oct. 9 issue of Commonweal:

Except for Catholics and a few others, however, the common good as a moral value has little purchase in American culture and politics. The closest some come is to speak of the “public interest,” but that notion seems more political than moral, useful perhaps but not quite the same. European health-care systems are based on the idea of solidarity, which is closely related to the common good, but the term “solidarity” has even less resonance here than the term “common good” does. For Europeans, it is a matter of solidarity that everyone have access to health care because it is a necessity for human welfare; and government, they believe, is the appropriate institution to guarantee this access. For Europeans, the 46 million uninsured Americans, together with the excessively high cost of care for those Americans who have insurance, is a source of astonishment. How can an affluent, civilized country tolerate treating millions of its citizens this way? Since every other developed nation provides universal care, it is worth exploring why we are different and whether anything can be done about it.

Moses persuasively argues that "the question 'Will this improve your life?' takes clever advantage of Americans’ lack of concern for the common good." And we would add that faith leaders in general should not be shy of reframing the question.