It's popular in some circles today to portray the Catholic Church as the opposite of reasonable.
One example: When the Church insists that its charities, hospitals and universities be allowed to carry out their mission without being forced by the government to violate Catholic teaching, it's depicted as attacking women's health care, despite the Church being a strong supporter of health care for all people. Another example: Recent years have seen the rise of more strident, outspoken atheists who, with evangelical fervor and more than a touch of hubris, declare that only their like-minded brethren are freethinkers and that people of any faith are superstitious children at best and hate-filled bigots at worst. Their favorite buzzword: reason.
Of course Pope Benedict XVI and others have long maintained that no conflict or competition exists between faith and reason, that the two in fact work together harmoniously as people engage the world around them. A great example of this is the position the U.S. bishops take on immigration reform, one of six priority issues raised in their reissued document on political responsibility, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.
When the bishops speak out on immigration, it's not the shrill rhetoric of partisan politics or ideology. It's not even a dense and lofty theological pronouncement. Instead, it's the calm, educated advice of people who understand an issue, care about it and want to see it resolved for the benefit of everyone involved. It's the pairing of values rooted in faith with arguments rooted in logic and common sense. It's humanitarian, and it's reasonable on numerous levels.
For instance...
When a country is saddled with immigration policies that have resulted in 12 million people living under the radar, it's reasonable to say, "Everyone recognizes the system is broken; let's move forward and replace this broken system with something that works so that everyone can benefit." Hence the bishops' calls for comprehensive immigration reform. Conversely, the approach of digging in further with the same enforcement-only approach that has been used for the last two decades is an example of repeating the same practice and expecting different results. It's also reasonable to recognize that one simply cannot deport 12 million people, with the costs, economic disruptions and logistical difficulties making it beyond impractical.
It's reasonable to question practices like raiding workplaces, separating families and holding people in prolonged detention as a proportionate response to non-violent offenders whose only offenses were motivated by need and, to be blunt about it, family values. It's reasonable to recognize that a tension can exist between two important values--in this case, the right of a country to secure and guard its borders and the right of people to emigrate to seek a livelihood for themselves and their families--and realize that a creative accommodation can alleviate that tension, whether that means increasing the number of visas given annually to meet demand or removing roadblocks to naturalization for young people who had no choice in coming.
It's reasonable to want to understand and address the underlying causes that drive illegal immigration. When people risk their lives and leave their families to come to a foreign land, the humane and logical response is to find out what forces compelled them to do such a risky, oftentimes desperate thing. The answer is usually some combination of systemic poverty, economic instability and political or religious persecution, issues the United States can work to alleviate in collaboration with its neighbors.
This is a humanitarian challenge for the United States, but it's also an opportunity and even a gift. It's reasonable to look to the historical context, to the tremendous energy and productivity infused in American culture by every subsequent wave of immigrants (most of which occurred under very different immigration laws, rendering moot the popular "well my ancestors came here legally" argument).
And so it's reasonable not only to know one's history, but to know oneself, especially as a politically-engaged Catholic. As Cardinal Timothy Dolan recently noted, "We are a church of immigrants, so we're particularly sensitive to the rights of immigrants." This should compel Catholics to approach the challenges of immigration reform not punitively, but as people of compassion, faith and reason.
Showing posts with label legal immigrants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legal immigrants. Show all posts
Friday, May 11, 2012
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
The Constancy of the Bishops on Health Care
It shouldn't have been too surprising, in the wake of the confusion on health care following the special Senate election in Massachusetts (Will the House pass the Senate version? Will the Senate pass the House version? Is the legislation dead? Will President Obama tell Congress to hurry up and pass it now? Will he abandon the bills and pursue a bi-partisan path?), that among the first voices to speak out clearly on the issue were those of the U.S. Bishops.
In a January 26 letter to both houses of Congress from Cardinal Daniel DiNardo and Bishops William Murphy and John Wester, the bishops made clear where they stand on the issue. They urged Congress to return to the work of passing health care reform that would provide access for all, protect human life at all stages and preserve conscience rights.
What's striking about the message of this latest letter (despite how some of the media portrayed it) is that it’s the same message the bishops have been communicating to Congress in letter after letter since the start of this debate.
It shouldn't be surprising that the Catholic hierarchy is the one fixed point of reference amid a swirling political whirlwind. We are, after all, talking about an institution that endured the fall of the Roman Empire. The shifting of the balance of power in Washington by a single Senate seat isn't going to rattle people who look to eternity on a daily basis.
In fact, it just brings into sharper focus the commitment to health care reform held by the U.S. bishops for decades. Bishops wrote to President Harry S Truman urging him to pass health care reform. Eleven administrations and eight transitions of power later, the bishops still hold this position. It transcends politics and drills down past ideological divides to statements of basic principle.
That is, the bishops see their work as advocating for the common good. In the spirit of Pope Benedict XVI arguing against moral relativism, the bishops see numerous aspects of the health care debate -- including the need to reform health care -- as objective moral principles that serve the wellbeing of everyone.
It's in the common good that millions of uninsured Americans be covered.
It's in the common good that health care be affordable.
It's in the common good that health care reform respect life at every stage, and does not force people to pay for abortions through their tax dollars or premiums.
It's in the common good that health care reform respect people's consciences.
It's in the common good that immigrants should be able to purchase health care with their own money.
That is why the bishops have viewed, and continue to view, health care with such great urgency. It's a moral issue, one that should transcend politics for the greater good. That's what the bishops have always believed. If Congress now needs to step back and ask what’s really important in health care reform, what are the basics that are worth fighting for, the bishops want to offer some time-tested but up-to-date ideas on where to begin.
In a January 26 letter to both houses of Congress from Cardinal Daniel DiNardo and Bishops William Murphy and John Wester, the bishops made clear where they stand on the issue. They urged Congress to return to the work of passing health care reform that would provide access for all, protect human life at all stages and preserve conscience rights.
What's striking about the message of this latest letter (despite how some of the media portrayed it) is that it’s the same message the bishops have been communicating to Congress in letter after letter since the start of this debate.
It shouldn't be surprising that the Catholic hierarchy is the one fixed point of reference amid a swirling political whirlwind. We are, after all, talking about an institution that endured the fall of the Roman Empire. The shifting of the balance of power in Washington by a single Senate seat isn't going to rattle people who look to eternity on a daily basis.
In fact, it just brings into sharper focus the commitment to health care reform held by the U.S. bishops for decades. Bishops wrote to President Harry S Truman urging him to pass health care reform. Eleven administrations and eight transitions of power later, the bishops still hold this position. It transcends politics and drills down past ideological divides to statements of basic principle.
That is, the bishops see their work as advocating for the common good. In the spirit of Pope Benedict XVI arguing against moral relativism, the bishops see numerous aspects of the health care debate -- including the need to reform health care -- as objective moral principles that serve the wellbeing of everyone.
It's in the common good that millions of uninsured Americans be covered.
It's in the common good that health care be affordable.
It's in the common good that health care reform respect life at every stage, and does not force people to pay for abortions through their tax dollars or premiums.
It's in the common good that health care reform respect people's consciences.
It's in the common good that immigrants should be able to purchase health care with their own money.
That is why the bishops have viewed, and continue to view, health care with such great urgency. It's a moral issue, one that should transcend politics for the greater good. That's what the bishops have always believed. If Congress now needs to step back and ask what’s really important in health care reform, what are the basics that are worth fighting for, the bishops want to offer some time-tested but up-to-date ideas on where to begin.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Keeping Catholic Hospitals True to Their Identity: A Winning Health Care Proposal
A friend just got a job in a Catholic hospital. She loves the work, and I hear with delight about the employee training program and the mission of top-flight care in a Catholic setting.
She is a receptionist, and hospital leaders know values must be conveyed by all the staff, from the first person you meet to the professional staff who hold lives in their hands.
Values that emphasize the sacredness of every person, rich or poor, coming into life or leaving it, are paramount in Catholic hospitals and right now the U.S. bishops are working hard to make sure these values will still exist under health care reform.
Catholic health care encompasses more than 600 facilities; the ministry costs about $6.7 billion annually. Yet, although Catholic hospitals are a major force, their unique nature could be threatened if the health care reform bills dismiss concerns of the bishops.
The U.S. bishops do not want an expansion of abortion and urge that the policy of the Hyde Amendment be preserved. The Hyde Amendment, first passed in 1976, precludes federal money from being used to pay for elective abortions or plans which provide coverage for them. This already is policy for several major federal health programs. The underlying principle: health care reform should not force anybody to pay for another’s abortion.
The bishops want conscience protection for institutions and individuals. Among other things, they would like to see the language of the Weldon Amendment incorporated into health care reform. Weldon, passed in 2004, prevents government bodies from discriminating against hospitals and other health care providers that do not perform, refer for or pay for abortions. Health care facilities and personnel have the right to provide care according to a value system that respects each human life. Language from the Weldon Amendment is now in the House health care reform bill and needs to be retained in final legislation.
The bishops as employers are not forced by federal law to pay for health plans that cover such services as abortion and sterilization and they want to retain that right. The church does not believe these are morally acceptable and it does violence to the church to force it as an employer to pay for them. This is a matter of conscience, of being true to one’s identity.
Charity care is part of any Catholic hospital but these hospitals also have to follow sound business practices. Emergency rooms must serve both insured and uninsured. The bills before Congress preserve current law that prevents legal immigrants from accessing federal-health care programs, such as Medicaid, for five years, even though they work, pay taxes, and soon will be citizens. They also prevent undocumented persons from buying into a newly-created health-care exchange, forcing them to stay uninsured and dependent on emergency room care. This is bad public policy, since the costs of their care would be borne by taxpayers. Under these rules, a hospital is forced to serve the sick, which is good, but can’t be reimbursed by insurance because some patients are denied entry into the government health care system even when they can afford to pay for it.
Catholic Charities provides about $3.5 billion annually in services. Much of it goes to people who can’t make ends meet. The health care reform proposals are burdensome at best. A family of four earning $29,500 would have to pay four percent of its income for health insurance and would have inadequate protection on high deductibles and co-payments. That’s almost $2,000 annually. Out-of-pocket expenses for health care could be near twenty percent of their income.
My friend feels she’s glimpsing heaven, in a place that respects people, rich or poor, coming into or leaving life on earth. She is part of something important to both church and society. Millions who have been patients in Catholic hospitals can attest to that! If Congress works with the bishops to uphold this gift to our nation, everybody wins.
She is a receptionist, and hospital leaders know values must be conveyed by all the staff, from the first person you meet to the professional staff who hold lives in their hands.
Values that emphasize the sacredness of every person, rich or poor, coming into life or leaving it, are paramount in Catholic hospitals and right now the U.S. bishops are working hard to make sure these values will still exist under health care reform.
Catholic health care encompasses more than 600 facilities; the ministry costs about $6.7 billion annually. Yet, although Catholic hospitals are a major force, their unique nature could be threatened if the health care reform bills dismiss concerns of the bishops.
The U.S. bishops do not want an expansion of abortion and urge that the policy of the Hyde Amendment be preserved. The Hyde Amendment, first passed in 1976, precludes federal money from being used to pay for elective abortions or plans which provide coverage for them. This already is policy for several major federal health programs. The underlying principle: health care reform should not force anybody to pay for another’s abortion.
The bishops want conscience protection for institutions and individuals. Among other things, they would like to see the language of the Weldon Amendment incorporated into health care reform. Weldon, passed in 2004, prevents government bodies from discriminating against hospitals and other health care providers that do not perform, refer for or pay for abortions. Health care facilities and personnel have the right to provide care according to a value system that respects each human life. Language from the Weldon Amendment is now in the House health care reform bill and needs to be retained in final legislation.
The bishops as employers are not forced by federal law to pay for health plans that cover such services as abortion and sterilization and they want to retain that right. The church does not believe these are morally acceptable and it does violence to the church to force it as an employer to pay for them. This is a matter of conscience, of being true to one’s identity.
Charity care is part of any Catholic hospital but these hospitals also have to follow sound business practices. Emergency rooms must serve both insured and uninsured. The bills before Congress preserve current law that prevents legal immigrants from accessing federal-health care programs, such as Medicaid, for five years, even though they work, pay taxes, and soon will be citizens. They also prevent undocumented persons from buying into a newly-created health-care exchange, forcing them to stay uninsured and dependent on emergency room care. This is bad public policy, since the costs of their care would be borne by taxpayers. Under these rules, a hospital is forced to serve the sick, which is good, but can’t be reimbursed by insurance because some patients are denied entry into the government health care system even when they can afford to pay for it.
Catholic Charities provides about $3.5 billion annually in services. Much of it goes to people who can’t make ends meet. The health care reform proposals are burdensome at best. A family of four earning $29,500 would have to pay four percent of its income for health insurance and would have inadequate protection on high deductibles and co-payments. That’s almost $2,000 annually. Out-of-pocket expenses for health care could be near twenty percent of their income.
My friend feels she’s glimpsing heaven, in a place that respects people, rich or poor, coming into or leaving life on earth. She is part of something important to both church and society. Millions who have been patients in Catholic hospitals can attest to that! If Congress works with the bishops to uphold this gift to our nation, everybody wins.
Friday, December 18, 2009
¡Que viva Menéndez!
Note: The following is the Spanish version of the earlier post of the same name.
El debate sobre la reforma de salud ha llegado a otro punto crítico con algunos senadores amenazando con un boicot por lo que consideran como demasiadas concesiones y otros aprovechando la oportunidad para tratar de descarrilar la reforma.
A pesar de todo, algunos senadores—esperamos que de ambos partidos—todavía se esfuerzan por acabar la tarea en nombre de los millones de estadounidenses que simplemente necesitan con urgencia esta reforma, y por dotar a la propuesta de ley de tanta justicia como les sea posible. Uno de tales senadores es Robert Menéndez (D-NJ) quien ha decidido abanderar la causa de la justicia para los inmigrantes—inmigrantes legales que trabajan duro, pagan impuestos y residen en los Estados Unidos con autorización del gobierno. La Enmienda Menéndez daría los estados la opción de eliminar el periodo de espera de cinco años para que los inmigrantes legales obtengan cobertura médica a través de Medicaid.
En una carta a los senadores el 14 de diciembre, los obispos les urgieron a apoyar la Enmienda Menéndez, la cual está en sintonía con uno de tres aspectos preocupantes de la reforma que los obispos han venido pidiendo al Congreso que aborde: respeto por la vida y la conciencia; accesibilidad económica; y acceso justo para los inmigrantes.
Nuestro país se aleja del principio fundamental de “justicia para todos” cuando separa a un grupo de personas y arbitrariamente les niega derechos que son suyos. Incluso aquellos que no consideran que la atención médica sea un derecho humano básico deberían estar de acuerdo en que las personas que contribuyen con sus impuestos y tienen autorización para vivir y trabajar aquí deberían poder beneficiarse en tiempos de necesidad del mismo sistema que ayudan a financiar. Si nacieron o no aquí es algo secundario.
La enmienda propuesta por Menéndez ofrece al Congreso la oportunidad de corregir un error, y de hacerlo de una manera fácil y eficiente.
Algunos estiman que hasta 600,000 personas podrían beneficiarse con esta enmienda si los estados también hacen su parte. Todos nos beneficiaremos al permitir que la comunidad inmigrante tenga acceso al cuidado médico y permanezca saludable.
Los inmigrantes contribuyen. Permitan, pues, que también se beneficien—dicen los obispos.¡Que viva Menéndez y que viva su enmienda!
El debate sobre la reforma de salud ha llegado a otro punto crítico con algunos senadores amenazando con un boicot por lo que consideran como demasiadas concesiones y otros aprovechando la oportunidad para tratar de descarrilar la reforma.
A pesar de todo, algunos senadores—esperamos que de ambos partidos—todavía se esfuerzan por acabar la tarea en nombre de los millones de estadounidenses que simplemente necesitan con urgencia esta reforma, y por dotar a la propuesta de ley de tanta justicia como les sea posible. Uno de tales senadores es Robert Menéndez (D-NJ) quien ha decidido abanderar la causa de la justicia para los inmigrantes—inmigrantes legales que trabajan duro, pagan impuestos y residen en los Estados Unidos con autorización del gobierno. La Enmienda Menéndez daría los estados la opción de eliminar el periodo de espera de cinco años para que los inmigrantes legales obtengan cobertura médica a través de Medicaid.
En una carta a los senadores el 14 de diciembre, los obispos les urgieron a apoyar la Enmienda Menéndez, la cual está en sintonía con uno de tres aspectos preocupantes de la reforma que los obispos han venido pidiendo al Congreso que aborde: respeto por la vida y la conciencia; accesibilidad económica; y acceso justo para los inmigrantes.
Nuestro país se aleja del principio fundamental de “justicia para todos” cuando separa a un grupo de personas y arbitrariamente les niega derechos que son suyos. Incluso aquellos que no consideran que la atención médica sea un derecho humano básico deberían estar de acuerdo en que las personas que contribuyen con sus impuestos y tienen autorización para vivir y trabajar aquí deberían poder beneficiarse en tiempos de necesidad del mismo sistema que ayudan a financiar. Si nacieron o no aquí es algo secundario.
La enmienda propuesta por Menéndez ofrece al Congreso la oportunidad de corregir un error, y de hacerlo de una manera fácil y eficiente.
Algunos estiman que hasta 600,000 personas podrían beneficiarse con esta enmienda si los estados también hacen su parte. Todos nos beneficiaremos al permitir que la comunidad inmigrante tenga acceso al cuidado médico y permanezca saludable.
Los inmigrantes contribuyen. Permitan, pues, que también se beneficien—dicen los obispos.¡Que viva Menéndez y que viva su enmienda!
Que Viva Menendez!
Health care reform has reached yet another make it or break it point, with some digging in their heels on what they consider too many concessions and some others not wasting any time and using the opportunity to try to derail health care reform.
Some senators--of both parties we hope-- still strive to get the job done for millions of Americans who badly need this reform, and to endow this bill with as much fairness as possible. One such senator is Robert Menendez (D-NJ) who has decided to champion the cause of fairness to immigrants -- legal immigrants who work hard, pay taxes and reside in the U.S. with government authorization. The Menezdez Amendment would give states the option to lift the five-year waiting period for legal immigrants to obtain Medicaid coverage.
In a December 14 letter to senators the bishops urged support for the Menendez Amendment, which is in line with one of three key concerns they have been asking Congress to address all along: respect life and conscience; affordability; and fair access for immigrants.
Our country departs from its founding principle of justice for all when it singles out a group of people and arbitrarily denies them rights due to them. Even those who do not consider access to health care a basic human right should agree that people who pay into the system, and who have authorization to work and live here, should be entitled to benefit from it in times of need. Whether they were born here or not is incidental.
The Menezdez Amendment offers Congress and opportunity to right a wrong, and to do so in an easy, efficient manner.
Some estimate that as many as 600,000 people could benefit if the states in turn do their part. We all will benefit from allowing the immigrant community to have access to health care and stay healthy.
They pay. Let them have their fair share, the bishops say.
Que viva Menendez! (Hooray for Menendez!) Let his amendment live!
Some senators--of both parties we hope-- still strive to get the job done for millions of Americans who badly need this reform, and to endow this bill with as much fairness as possible. One such senator is Robert Menendez (D-NJ) who has decided to champion the cause of fairness to immigrants -- legal immigrants who work hard, pay taxes and reside in the U.S. with government authorization. The Menezdez Amendment would give states the option to lift the five-year waiting period for legal immigrants to obtain Medicaid coverage.
In a December 14 letter to senators the bishops urged support for the Menendez Amendment, which is in line with one of three key concerns they have been asking Congress to address all along: respect life and conscience; affordability; and fair access for immigrants.
Our country departs from its founding principle of justice for all when it singles out a group of people and arbitrarily denies them rights due to them. Even those who do not consider access to health care a basic human right should agree that people who pay into the system, and who have authorization to work and live here, should be entitled to benefit from it in times of need. Whether they were born here or not is incidental.
The Menezdez Amendment offers Congress and opportunity to right a wrong, and to do so in an easy, efficient manner.
Some estimate that as many as 600,000 people could benefit if the states in turn do their part. We all will benefit from allowing the immigrant community to have access to health care and stay healthy.
They pay. Let them have their fair share, the bishops say.
Que viva Menendez! (Hooray for Menendez!) Let his amendment live!
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
The Bishops and Health Care Reform for Immigrants
A group of Hispanic Catholic bishops visited with members of Congress on Capitol Hill September 17 to emphasize, as they’ve done for decades, the U.S. bishops are in favor of health care reform that is truly universal and respects the life and dignity of all -- from the moment of conception until natural death.
There were other issues on the agenda: immigration reform, education, housing and poverty. The bishops came away feeling that they had been given the opportunity to touch, briefly, on all the issues in each of the meetings. The congressmen were not only courteous but truly engaged on each of the issues. On the bishops’ side the experience was positive.
At the media briefing immediately after the meetings, the questions posed to the bishops narrowed the focus to the current debate on health care reform, particularly as it relates to immigrants. No surprise here.
There are immigrants and immigrants. Not to oversimplify the content of the dialogue, here is what the bishops actually told legislators: that any health care reform bill must allow legal immigrants -- most of whom are taxpayers and many of whom serve in the military -- to participate in any new health care system on the same basis as United States citizens.
The issue of health care for undocumented immigrants was raised during the meetings in the context of a recent proposal in the Baucus Health Care Reform Bill -- currently being considered on the Senate Finance Committee, which Senator Baucus chairs -- to bar undocumented immigrants from spending their own private funds to purchase health insurance for themselves and their families. The bishops expressed opposition to such proposals, telling legislators that proactively barring individuals from spending their own money on health insurance is both morally wrong and contrary to the public welfare. The bishops pointed out that if undocumented immigrants are not permitted to use their own private funds to purchase health insurance, they will wind up going to emergency rooms in greater numbers, which American taxpayers would ultimately have to fund.
Noting that unborn children of pregnant women in the United States will be United States citizens upon birth, the bishops expressed support for ensuring that all pregnant women have access to health care, regardless of their immigration status. The bishops also urged legislators to ensure that no public funds are used to pay for abortions and medical providers are permitted to decline to participate in medical procedures that conflict with their conscience.
A summary of the key points on other topics discussed with legislators can be found here.
There were other issues on the agenda: immigration reform, education, housing and poverty. The bishops came away feeling that they had been given the opportunity to touch, briefly, on all the issues in each of the meetings. The congressmen were not only courteous but truly engaged on each of the issues. On the bishops’ side the experience was positive.
At the media briefing immediately after the meetings, the questions posed to the bishops narrowed the focus to the current debate on health care reform, particularly as it relates to immigrants. No surprise here.
There are immigrants and immigrants. Not to oversimplify the content of the dialogue, here is what the bishops actually told legislators: that any health care reform bill must allow legal immigrants -- most of whom are taxpayers and many of whom serve in the military -- to participate in any new health care system on the same basis as United States citizens.
The issue of health care for undocumented immigrants was raised during the meetings in the context of a recent proposal in the Baucus Health Care Reform Bill -- currently being considered on the Senate Finance Committee, which Senator Baucus chairs -- to bar undocumented immigrants from spending their own private funds to purchase health insurance for themselves and their families. The bishops expressed opposition to such proposals, telling legislators that proactively barring individuals from spending their own money on health insurance is both morally wrong and contrary to the public welfare. The bishops pointed out that if undocumented immigrants are not permitted to use their own private funds to purchase health insurance, they will wind up going to emergency rooms in greater numbers, which American taxpayers would ultimately have to fund.
Noting that unborn children of pregnant women in the United States will be United States citizens upon birth, the bishops expressed support for ensuring that all pregnant women have access to health care, regardless of their immigration status. The bishops also urged legislators to ensure that no public funds are used to pay for abortions and medical providers are permitted to decline to participate in medical procedures that conflict with their conscience.
A summary of the key points on other topics discussed with legislators can be found here.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
A Jarring Contrast
In a latest instance of Catholic bishops weighing in on health care outside the realm of official USCCB statement, Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington penned a September 16 piece for the Web site Politics Daily.
It's pretty straightforward -- he begins by stating that the moral dimension of health care should be remembered since it really is a moral issue that deals with life-and-death instances of meeting people's health needs. He then states that he sees consensus that it's wrong that so many are uninsured and that the U.S. system, for all its strength, really ought to be able to do better. He then describes at some length the extensive health care provided by the Catholic Church and Catholic teaching on how health care is a human right.
Building off of this, Archbishop Wuerl says the practical moral concerns for health care reform are that it defend the most vulnerable, such as the unborn by maintaining current restrictions on federal abortion funding and coverage, as well as preserving conscience protection. It should also, he asserts, not discriminate because of chronic illnesses, pre-existing conditions, employment or income. He also cites the need to cover "the least of these," referring to legal immigrants who reside her legally, work and pay taxes, but "risk being left out of health care reform."
He concludes by urging public, private and non-profit health care entities to work together for the greater good and prayerfully expresses hope for the challenge and opportunity faced by our lawmakers.
There wouldn't be much to add to this piece, except that it was published on the Internet, where anyone can add to a piece thanks to the comment field. Granted, this is far from new or unusual, but the comments drawn by Archbishop Wuerl's remarks were striking in their unpleasantness. One Twitter handle promoting the article even noted the "vicious anti-Catholic comments at the end."
It's pretty straightforward -- he begins by stating that the moral dimension of health care should be remembered since it really is a moral issue that deals with life-and-death instances of meeting people's health needs. He then states that he sees consensus that it's wrong that so many are uninsured and that the U.S. system, for all its strength, really ought to be able to do better. He then describes at some length the extensive health care provided by the Catholic Church and Catholic teaching on how health care is a human right.
Building off of this, Archbishop Wuerl says the practical moral concerns for health care reform are that it defend the most vulnerable, such as the unborn by maintaining current restrictions on federal abortion funding and coverage, as well as preserving conscience protection. It should also, he asserts, not discriminate because of chronic illnesses, pre-existing conditions, employment or income. He also cites the need to cover "the least of these," referring to legal immigrants who reside her legally, work and pay taxes, but "risk being left out of health care reform."
He concludes by urging public, private and non-profit health care entities to work together for the greater good and prayerfully expresses hope for the challenge and opportunity faced by our lawmakers.
There wouldn't be much to add to this piece, except that it was published on the Internet, where anyone can add to a piece thanks to the comment field. Granted, this is far from new or unusual, but the comments drawn by Archbishop Wuerl's remarks were striking in their unpleasantness. One Twitter handle promoting the article even noted the "vicious anti-Catholic comments at the end."
This description is really an understatement, and a partial one at that. A sampling of the comments finds commenters calling people without health care the "lazy masses," many others saying that all immigrants, legal or illegal, should be barred from any health care assistance from the government, as well as numerous comments disparaging the Catholic Church, i.e. calling its leaders pedophiles.
The resulting queue of comments reads like a diatribe of hateful comments against the uninsured, immigrants and the Catholic Church and isn't improved upon by commenters responding to these points by calling the original commenters names and employing ever harsher and shriller tones.
The real irony in all of this is the jarring contrast between the body of comments and the content of Archbishop Wuerl's piece. By all accounts, Archbishop Wuerl is a gentleman, someone who wouldn't climb down and participate in a mud fight. The discussion generated by his story would be immeasurably improved if the commenters followed his lead and presented their points of agreement and disagreement in calm, reasoned tones. Instead, the points of his argument are passed over in favor of name-calling, questioning his motives, his authority and worse.
Even more discouraging is the nagging -- but unconfirmed -- suspicion that some comments are based on gut-level reactions to reading the article's title, "Health Care Reform a Moral Imperative, But Must Cover Immigrants, Too," maybe skimming the article and then dropping down to the comment field to unload.
A discouraged part of me asks, "Is it too much effort to try to digest what the Archbishop is trying to say before letting fly with a pre-formed opinion?" "Is it too much effort to exercise a little respect or restraint?" "Is it too much effort to be nice?"
Along with the general thoughts about incivility in the days of the blog, this put me in mind of a recent piece by John Allen that discusses, in part, how the Church is facing a culture that no longer pays it any special heed just because it's the Catholic Church. He refers to this as the decline of the "power distance index" of the Catholic Church. And one could argue this concept is reflected in the reception Archbishop Wuerl receives on the Internet, a hyper-democratic entity where no opinion is given any added weight or special deference.
Is this a high-tech example of what then-Cardinal Ratzinger meant by the dictatorship of relativism?
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Legal Immigrants and Health Care Reform
Why should any plan that emanates form the current national debate on health care reform include legal immigrants? The answer should be obvious: legal immigrants are lawful -- and in many cases permanent -- residents of the United States. They work -- with government authorization -- and pay taxes into the system just as U.S. citizens do and, thus should be able to access federal benefits that guarantee the protection of basic human rights.
The issue revolves around whether legal immigrants must continue to wait five years before they become eligible for Medicaid, which is the current law (otherwise known as “the five-year ban”), and whether the five-year ban should be extended to legal immigrants of higher incomes who otherwise would become eligible for subsidies to buy health insurance.
Opponents say legal immigrants are not U.S. citizens and that any plan should only include U.S. citizens. They also suggest that the cost of including legal immigrants would be prohibitive. The truth is that the numbers do not support such claims.
According to the non-partisan Kaiser Foundation, non-citizens have less access to health care and receive less primary health care than U.S. citizens, but they are also less likely to use the emergency room. A July 2009 article in the American Journal of Public Health supports this claim.
According to the Immigration Policy Center, the average immigrant uses less than half the dollar amount of health care services than the average native-born U.S. citizen. This is because they are usually younger, healthier and less likely to use medical services, and due to the fact that U.S. citizens make up 78% of the non-elderly uninsured.
Opponents of the inclusion of legal permanent residents should check their math. When health costs are distributed across a broader pool of people, who in addition tend to use those services less, the overall costs for everyone goes down.
Earlier this year, legal immigrant pregnant women and children became eligible for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). All pregnant women and children, regardless of their immigration status, should receive coverage to ensure that newborns are healthy and children receive regular check ups and vaccinations.
Legal immigrants pay into the system, so they should be able to access the benefits, just like everyone else.
The United States recognized that health care is a universal human right when it signed on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948 (see Article 25). We have, however, a less than convincing record on upholding this right for our population. Forty-seven million uninsured people are a powerful witness against us.
The issue revolves around whether legal immigrants must continue to wait five years before they become eligible for Medicaid, which is the current law (otherwise known as “the five-year ban”), and whether the five-year ban should be extended to legal immigrants of higher incomes who otherwise would become eligible for subsidies to buy health insurance.
Opponents say legal immigrants are not U.S. citizens and that any plan should only include U.S. citizens. They also suggest that the cost of including legal immigrants would be prohibitive. The truth is that the numbers do not support such claims.
According to the non-partisan Kaiser Foundation, non-citizens have less access to health care and receive less primary health care than U.S. citizens, but they are also less likely to use the emergency room. A July 2009 article in the American Journal of Public Health supports this claim.
According to the Immigration Policy Center, the average immigrant uses less than half the dollar amount of health care services than the average native-born U.S. citizen. This is because they are usually younger, healthier and less likely to use medical services, and due to the fact that U.S. citizens make up 78% of the non-elderly uninsured.
Opponents of the inclusion of legal permanent residents should check their math. When health costs are distributed across a broader pool of people, who in addition tend to use those services less, the overall costs for everyone goes down.
Earlier this year, legal immigrant pregnant women and children became eligible for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). All pregnant women and children, regardless of their immigration status, should receive coverage to ensure that newborns are healthy and children receive regular check ups and vaccinations.
Legal immigrants pay into the system, so they should be able to access the benefits, just like everyone else.
The United States recognized that health care is a universal human right when it signed on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948 (see Article 25). We have, however, a less than convincing record on upholding this right for our population. Forty-seven million uninsured people are a powerful witness against us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
