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.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Monday, August 17, 2009
Health Care Site (and Videos) Up!
We announced on Friday that the Conference has launched a Web page promoting the U.S. bishops' position on health care reform.
Along with the various backgrounders, letters from bishops and other information on the topic, the site features a handful of strong Web videos with USCCB staff explaining aspects of Catholic teaching on health care reform.
First is Kathy Saile, director of Domestic Social Development, who gives an overview of the issue.
Following this video, Richard Doerflinger, associate director of Pro-Life Activities, elaborates on protecting the life and dignity of every person by providing some history and context for how abortion fits into the health care reform debate.
Doerflinger gets even more specific in the next video in which he explores the concerns the bishops have with the current House health care reform bill.
He then speaks to the whole issue of health care from a Catholic perspective that is in favor of reform, in favor of universal coverage that includes the poor and immigrants, but which also defends human life from conception till natural death. The way he unifies these ideas as part of a consistent, life-affirming ethic is well done.
Finally, Doerflinger addresses what Catholics can do, noting the need to get involved in the discussion and stand together, saying yes to health care reform, but reform that protects the life and dignity of every person.
Along with the various backgrounders, letters from bishops and other information on the topic, the site features a handful of strong Web videos with USCCB staff explaining aspects of Catholic teaching on health care reform.
First is Kathy Saile, director of Domestic Social Development, who gives an overview of the issue.
Following this video, Richard Doerflinger, associate director of Pro-Life Activities, elaborates on protecting the life and dignity of every person by providing some history and context for how abortion fits into the health care reform debate.
Doerflinger gets even more specific in the next video in which he explores the concerns the bishops have with the current House health care reform bill.
He then speaks to the whole issue of health care from a Catholic perspective that is in favor of reform, in favor of universal coverage that includes the poor and immigrants, but which also defends human life from conception till natural death. The way he unifies these ideas as part of a consistent, life-affirming ethic is well done.
Finally, Doerflinger addresses what Catholics can do, noting the need to get involved in the discussion and stand together, saying yes to health care reform, but reform that protects the life and dignity of every person.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
And Now Facebook
So it seems one of the projects that I could only hint at in the last blog post has come to fruition more quickly than expected. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops now has an official page on Facebook.
This page follows Twitter and this blog in terms of social media outreach by the Communications and Media Relations wing of the USCCB. Hopefully, the Facebook page will complete this picture, adding pictures, videos, forums for discussion, and links to USCCB and other content. This is all a work in progress, mind you, but these are our hopes.
So for any Facebook users who follow us on here or on Twitter, we happily suggest following the link in the first paragraph above and becoming a fan.
A side note -- our page should not to be mistaken with a pre-existing Facebook group that, despite its lack of affiliation, seems to suggest that it is part of our organization. This is not the case.
This page follows Twitter and this blog in terms of social media outreach by the Communications and Media Relations wing of the USCCB. Hopefully, the Facebook page will complete this picture, adding pictures, videos, forums for discussion, and links to USCCB and other content. This is all a work in progress, mind you, but these are our hopes.
So for any Facebook users who follow us on here or on Twitter, we happily suggest following the link in the first paragraph above and becoming a fan.
A side note -- our page should not to be mistaken with a pre-existing Facebook group that, despite its lack of affiliation, seems to suggest that it is part of our organization. This is not the case.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
A Mid Summer Day's Roundup
As summer wears on, things have been pretty quiet here on the blog and over at our Twitter handle. But life in the USCCB Media Relations office is still busy enough.
Reporters wanting an interview on health care, letters circulating to various officials on various issues, policy people working overtime behind the scenes, and ongoing efforts to embrace ever newer forms of social media -- it's all making for a surprisingly lively summer.
The only problem of it is that so little of it is blog or Twitter worthy.
While Catholic News Service still has plenty to report on, between the Congressional August recess and the Holy See being rather quiet for this month, the best I can urge on our end is a hopefully-reassuring "stay tuned."
Reporters wanting an interview on health care, letters circulating to various officials on various issues, policy people working overtime behind the scenes, and ongoing efforts to embrace ever newer forms of social media -- it's all making for a surprisingly lively summer.
The only problem of it is that so little of it is blog or Twitter worthy.
While Catholic News Service still has plenty to report on, between the Congressional August recess and the Holy See being rather quiet for this month, the best I can urge on our end is a hopefully-reassuring "stay tuned."
Monday, July 27, 2009
Support vs. Support
The USCCB has come under fire recently for its support of efforts to pass climate change legislation, with some of our policy people getting angry calls and e-mails. I don't mean the climate-change-isn't-real-it's-all-a-conspiracy kind of fire, although our policy people get those calls too. I'm talking about the but-that-bill-is-full-of-pork-and-all-sorts-of-wasteful-spending-how-could-you-ever-support-it kind of fire.
To get to the heart of what is really going on here, it might be good to draw a distinction between support and support, as far as the U.S. Bishops are concerned.
For instance, the only support from the U.S. bishops toward climate change legislation can be found in a June 22 joint letter with Catholic Relief Services to every member of Congress. In the letter, represenatives of the USCCB and CRS welcome the progress that has been made on the issue itself but state that they are "deeply disappointed" that the current legislation doesn't do enough to help poor people worldwide who contribute the least to climate change but suffer the most from its effects. The USCCB news release that accompanied this letter stressed this point.
So where, then, do the bishops stand on this legislation? The facts: we know the Catholic Church supports efforts to combat climate change. This has grown ever more apparent as Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out time and again, most recently in his new encyclical. The U.S. bishops have followed the pope's lead. And in the letter to Congress, they call the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454) “groundbreaking legislation” that “begins a serious and overdue effort to face up to moral and environmental challenges and represents an important beginning.”
Yes, that sounds very supportive. But they go on to criticize the legislation heavily for not doing enough for the poor. Does this mean they've endorsed the legislation? Hardly. An endorsement looks more like this, with a bishop actually urging members of Congress to vote for a bill.
Another example of the bishops being supportive in one area but not in another came at the beginning of June when the bishops supported the Reuniting American Families Act (S. 1085) but refused to support similar legislation in the House of Representatives because it contained language that would have extended marriage-like rights to same-sex couples.
The picture that emerges is an encouraging one of bishops who are not willing to sacrifice their principles to achieve political goals, who exercise caution when engaging legislation, and who aren't afraid to throw a bill back and say, "We appreciate what you're trying to do overall, but this isn't good enough. This has pieces we can't support."
This approach should serve the bishops well as they seek to engage Congress on a particularly thorny issue, health care reform. In this case, the USCCB sent Congress a very broad letter, noting the bishops' decades-long support for the cause, outlining their priorities, and emphasizing two general areas -- respect for human life and access for all -- where they see the current legislative efforts needing work.
While far from an endorsement, the USCCB news release on this letter sparked an outraged tirade, on Twitter no less, in which an individual, convinced that health care reform meant a wholesale sellout to the abortion lobby, accused the bishops and myself of throwing the unborn and the taxpayers "to the wolves" in 140-character blasts.
First, I wondered if the person had even read the letter. But after that, it occurred that the guiding principles of the bishops -- cautious engagement, subtle discernment -- are a model for all of us. The bishops recognize that a proposed piece of legislation is a work in progress and that all Catholics, bishops included, are called to engage the political process and be the proverbial prophetic voice, not settling for the status quo when we know it can be better.
In a way, this approach echoes the methodology of a Church that is always calling on its people to do better, to eliminate their destructive behaviors and build on the good in their lives ... until that day when they hear the Lord say, "Well done, good and faithful Congressman--er--servant."
To get to the heart of what is really going on here, it might be good to draw a distinction between support and support, as far as the U.S. Bishops are concerned.
For instance, the only support from the U.S. bishops toward climate change legislation can be found in a June 22 joint letter with Catholic Relief Services to every member of Congress. In the letter, represenatives of the USCCB and CRS welcome the progress that has been made on the issue itself but state that they are "deeply disappointed" that the current legislation doesn't do enough to help poor people worldwide who contribute the least to climate change but suffer the most from its effects. The USCCB news release that accompanied this letter stressed this point.
So where, then, do the bishops stand on this legislation? The facts: we know the Catholic Church supports efforts to combat climate change. This has grown ever more apparent as Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out time and again, most recently in his new encyclical. The U.S. bishops have followed the pope's lead. And in the letter to Congress, they call the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454) “groundbreaking legislation” that “begins a serious and overdue effort to face up to moral and environmental challenges and represents an important beginning.”
Yes, that sounds very supportive. But they go on to criticize the legislation heavily for not doing enough for the poor. Does this mean they've endorsed the legislation? Hardly. An endorsement looks more like this, with a bishop actually urging members of Congress to vote for a bill.
Another example of the bishops being supportive in one area but not in another came at the beginning of June when the bishops supported the Reuniting American Families Act (S. 1085) but refused to support similar legislation in the House of Representatives because it contained language that would have extended marriage-like rights to same-sex couples.
The picture that emerges is an encouraging one of bishops who are not willing to sacrifice their principles to achieve political goals, who exercise caution when engaging legislation, and who aren't afraid to throw a bill back and say, "We appreciate what you're trying to do overall, but this isn't good enough. This has pieces we can't support."
This approach should serve the bishops well as they seek to engage Congress on a particularly thorny issue, health care reform. In this case, the USCCB sent Congress a very broad letter, noting the bishops' decades-long support for the cause, outlining their priorities, and emphasizing two general areas -- respect for human life and access for all -- where they see the current legislative efforts needing work.
While far from an endorsement, the USCCB news release on this letter sparked an outraged tirade, on Twitter no less, in which an individual, convinced that health care reform meant a wholesale sellout to the abortion lobby, accused the bishops and myself of throwing the unborn and the taxpayers "to the wolves" in 140-character blasts.
First, I wondered if the person had even read the letter. But after that, it occurred that the guiding principles of the bishops -- cautious engagement, subtle discernment -- are a model for all of us. The bishops recognize that a proposed piece of legislation is a work in progress and that all Catholics, bishops included, are called to engage the political process and be the proverbial prophetic voice, not settling for the status quo when we know it can be better.
In a way, this approach echoes the methodology of a Church that is always calling on its people to do better, to eliminate their destructive behaviors and build on the good in their lives ... until that day when they hear the Lord say, "Well done, good and faithful Congressman--er--servant."
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Make Health Care Reform Abortion Neutral
The nation struggles to reform health care, and concerns range from how to fund health care to the role of the federal government in health care to whether to insure American children born to undocumented persons.
Stunningly, the country’s abortion lobby wants to mire the debate by using it to promote abortion. They want to make it a required health benefit – I’m not sure to benefit whom. It doesn’t benefit unborn children, and you can make a good case that it doesn’t benefit their mothers either, given all the regrets afterwards.
When the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 voted to permit abortion as a matter of privacy, people predicted that arguments over abortion would split the nation in two.
Were they ever right! There’s never been an issue in modern times to have such an effect. The nationwide moral upheaval that has ensued since then speaks to the visceral nature of the issue. It just does not sit well with people.
To attach abortion rights to health care reform is to guarantee the failure of health care reform.
Health care reform needs to be abortion neutral. It’s about pregnant women having pre-natal care, children getting vaccinations, oldsters getting blood pressure medication and middle-agers having cancer screening. It’s about all Americans having decent health care so that they aren’t forced to choose between buying cereal for breakfast or antibiotics for strep throat.
Health care reform is not about terminating pregnancies. Americans do not want to pay for other people’s elective abortions. Current laws only allow federal dollars to go for abortion in cases of rape or incest or threat to the life of the mother. Moral objections to abortion run deep.
The well-funded abortion lobby that seeks to make abortion a sine qua non for health care reform puts all of us at risk as the abortion lobbyists cavalierly promote a political agenda guaranteed to worsen the situation of health care in the United States.
The nation’s health care crisis needs to be addressed. Making sure the legislation is abortion-neutral takes one huge obstacle out of the way.
Stunningly, the country’s abortion lobby wants to mire the debate by using it to promote abortion. They want to make it a required health benefit – I’m not sure to benefit whom. It doesn’t benefit unborn children, and you can make a good case that it doesn’t benefit their mothers either, given all the regrets afterwards.
When the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 voted to permit abortion as a matter of privacy, people predicted that arguments over abortion would split the nation in two.
Were they ever right! There’s never been an issue in modern times to have such an effect. The nationwide moral upheaval that has ensued since then speaks to the visceral nature of the issue. It just does not sit well with people.
To attach abortion rights to health care reform is to guarantee the failure of health care reform.
Health care reform needs to be abortion neutral. It’s about pregnant women having pre-natal care, children getting vaccinations, oldsters getting blood pressure medication and middle-agers having cancer screening. It’s about all Americans having decent health care so that they aren’t forced to choose between buying cereal for breakfast or antibiotics for strep throat.
Health care reform is not about terminating pregnancies. Americans do not want to pay for other people’s elective abortions. Current laws only allow federal dollars to go for abortion in cases of rape or incest or threat to the life of the mother. Moral objections to abortion run deep.
The well-funded abortion lobby that seeks to make abortion a sine qua non for health care reform puts all of us at risk as the abortion lobbyists cavalierly promote a political agenda guaranteed to worsen the situation of health care in the United States.
The nation’s health care crisis needs to be addressed. Making sure the legislation is abortion-neutral takes one huge obstacle out of the way.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Membership Notes
Pardon the tardiness of this post. I'd wanted to address this issue much earlier this week, but first had to request information from some resources.
Among the big stories in the Catholic Church last week was the episcopal ordination Mass of Archbishop J. Augustine "Gus" DiNoia, OP, at Washington's Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.
With Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith Cardinal William Levada serving as principal consecrator and Washington Archbishop Donald Wuerl and retired Louisville Archbishop Thomas Kelly, OP, serving as principal co-consecrators, the beautiful Mass provided quite a send-off for DiNoia as he enters his role as Secretary (the #2 man) in the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments.
Now that Father DiNoia is Archbishop DiNoia, there is one question that bubbled to the surface quickly for this USCCB official -- Is DiNoia now a member of the USCCB?
He is, after all, from the United States and a Catholic bishop. Then there's his past association with the organization through his role as head of its Doctrine office. And his ordination took place just across the street from the USCCB headquarters (and Dominican House of Studies, where he also served for years).
The short answer is no. And I had to dig into the organizational statutes to find that membership in the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is limited to 1. bishops, archbishops, auxiliary bishops and coadjutors of dioceses and eparchs in the United States and U.S. Virgin Islands and have no membership in another conference, 2. bishops performing special duties entrusted to them by the USCCB or the Holy See for the Church in the U.S. and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
So, on the flip side, the people not covered by this description are Vatican officials, diplomats, etc. who happen to be Americans. This includes DiNoia, whose work will be not just for the U.S. Church, but for the Universal Church. This includes Archbishop Raymond Burke, formerly of St. Louis, now Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura. This includes Cardinal Levada, formerly Archbishop of San Francisco, now the third most powerful person in the Catholic Church, but not a current member of the USCCB.
It's worth noting that, according to USCCB statutes, retired U.S. bishops have "a consultative voice but not a deliberative vote in the Conference. They are encouraged and invited to attend all sessions of the Plenary Assembly and to make available to the Conference their special wisdom and experience by speaking to issues at hand."
My next question is whether this courtesy extends to retired Vatican officials who were once U.S. ordinaries, such as Cardinal James Stafford, former Denver archbishop and retired Major Penitentiary. I presume so, but there are so many ways to slice and dice this ...
Update: Apparently, the answer to my last question is yes. My source gave the example of Cardinal Edmund Szoka, former President of the Pontifical Commission for the Vatican City State, also a former Archbishop of Detroit, and also a member of the USCCB.
Among the big stories in the Catholic Church last week was the episcopal ordination Mass of Archbishop J. Augustine "Gus" DiNoia, OP, at Washington's Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.
With Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith Cardinal William Levada serving as principal consecrator and Washington Archbishop Donald Wuerl and retired Louisville Archbishop Thomas Kelly, OP, serving as principal co-consecrators, the beautiful Mass provided quite a send-off for DiNoia as he enters his role as Secretary (the #2 man) in the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments.
Now that Father DiNoia is Archbishop DiNoia, there is one question that bubbled to the surface quickly for this USCCB official -- Is DiNoia now a member of the USCCB?
He is, after all, from the United States and a Catholic bishop. Then there's his past association with the organization through his role as head of its Doctrine office. And his ordination took place just across the street from the USCCB headquarters (and Dominican House of Studies, where he also served for years).
The short answer is no. And I had to dig into the organizational statutes to find that membership in the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is limited to 1. bishops, archbishops, auxiliary bishops and coadjutors of dioceses and eparchs in the United States and U.S. Virgin Islands and have no membership in another conference, 2. bishops performing special duties entrusted to them by the USCCB or the Holy See for the Church in the U.S. and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
So, on the flip side, the people not covered by this description are Vatican officials, diplomats, etc. who happen to be Americans. This includes DiNoia, whose work will be not just for the U.S. Church, but for the Universal Church. This includes Archbishop Raymond Burke, formerly of St. Louis, now Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura. This includes Cardinal Levada, formerly Archbishop of San Francisco, now the third most powerful person in the Catholic Church, but not a current member of the USCCB.
It's worth noting that, according to USCCB statutes, retired U.S. bishops have "a consultative voice but not a deliberative vote in the Conference. They are encouraged and invited to attend all sessions of the Plenary Assembly and to make available to the Conference their special wisdom and experience by speaking to issues at hand."
My next question is whether this courtesy extends to retired Vatican officials who were once U.S. ordinaries, such as Cardinal James Stafford, former Denver archbishop and retired Major Penitentiary. I presume so, but there are so many ways to slice and dice this ...
Update: Apparently, the answer to my last question is yes. My source gave the example of Cardinal Edmund Szoka, former President of the Pontifical Commission for the Vatican City State, also a former Archbishop of Detroit, and also a member of the USCCB.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
