Freelance: 6 Pro-Life Priorities for Healthcare Reform

One of the fruits of my readings on health insurance.

http://truthandcharityforum.org/top-6-pro-life-aims-for-health-care-reform/

“The practice of medicine involves the whole human body, so policies about it inevitably express a specific anthropology or philosophical understanding of the human person. National legislation that includes every citizen will have the consequence of enacting one anthropology as opposed to others. Accordingly, health care law has become a test of America’s ability to balance an authentic pluralism, one that is capable of respecting both individual freedom and the moral commitments of other individuals who become funders of it.”

  1. A clear distinction between insurance and medical care – A glaring, but oft-unacknowledged error of the Affordable Care Act is the difference between having health insurance and receiving needed medical care. The former is no guarantee of the latter. The working poor with incomes that set them above the Medicaid threshold have been saddled with low-premium plans that have exorbitant deductibles of up to $13,000, that leave them de facto uninsured and priced-out of healthcare. This problem reveals a gap in concern for certain social groups; it’s part of an anthropology that gives lip service to covering all people, but actually disregards some. Pro-life means pro-life for everyone, so a pro-life policy should seek to increase access for all.
  2. Adequate funding for the severely ill and dying – Euthanasia is a development that pro-life people need to fight. As physician-assisted suicide gains legal traction, insurance companies have incentives to deny expensive care for cancer patients, such as Stephanie Packer, a mother of four diagnosed with late stage cancer.Legalized suicide inverts the practice of medicine, turning patients into dollar amounts instead of lives worth saving, regardless of long is left. The cultural message about the value and purposes of life that is sent by legal suicide is tragic and irreversible. If lives are only valuable when they are pain-free and productive, most of us will soon be in the crosshairs. As the government sets policy, we must demand that it take care of its citizens rather than killing them, and that it tells Americans that life is worth living. This should be an anthropological no-brainer.
  3. A continuation of Hyde restriction on abortion – Presently, the Hyde Amendment, a rider attached annually to the Congressional budget, prohibits federal funding for abortion. It affects Medicaid primarily, but is also present in the ACA. Insurers are not required to cover abortions. States, by contrast, may add abortion coverage or limit it.The principles of the Hyde Amendment permit a level of personal removal for taxpayers who would be funding the procedure that, for many, amounts to murder. Hyde is one of the key compromises that followed the 1973 legalization of abortion. However, it came under fire this campaign season from the Democratic party platform and nominee, Hillary Clinton. In the first week of his presidency, Mr. Trump passed the Hyde rider into a permanent law. For valuing life, it’s a small but important victory. Abortion is a clear-cut case of difference on what it means to be human and who counts as one. Hyde represents one stab at pluralism, a starting point. A committed pro-life healthcare policy will further demonstrate support for women, babies and families through—
  4. Support for prenatal and neonatal care – Pro-life groups are often criticized for caring more about the baby than the mother. If conservatives have a chance to help shape public health policy, we need to make abortion obsolete. Support for pregnant mothers, new moms, and infants, as well as adoption placement need to be readily available so that women in difficult situations aren’t left alone and without options. Raising a child is difficult and demanding work. If we claim to welcome unplanned children, we need to welcome unplanned children, viewing them and their mothers as essential to the social fabric of our country. That’s an anthropology of life that values people and responsibility rather than seeking to abolish the natural consequences of behavior.

Full article  (and the other 2 ideas here): http://truthandcharityforum.org/top-6-pro-life-aims-for-health-care-reform/

Question: Why do you think healthcare exploded onto the political scene during Obama’s presidency? What is at stake in the debate?

Advertisements

Prez. Candidates: When it comes to the environment, life matters too

[This article appeared originally on the Truth and Charity Forum]

“So as we approach the election, we must keep these two paradoxical principles in regard to the environment in our minds: that it has intrinsic worth as God’s creation and that it has worth as it serves humanity and offers us the basic survivals of our life.

Pope Francis sees a profound unity within Creation that is both the work of God that gives him glory and the domain of man which provides us our sustenance. Francis notes that, “Pope Benedict asked us to recognize that the natural environment has been gravely damaged by our irresponsible behaviour,” and also that human lives have suffered because of that, since humans and natural world are an interrelated whole. He continues that, “Both are ultimately due to the same evil: the notion that there are no indisputable truths to guide our lives, and hence human freedom is limitless” (LS 6).

Thus, because there is truth, because reality and the earth are real, we have duties to the earth and to each other. We have to live in accord with the inherent goodness of the earth, the biblical commandment that we steward it, and the biological realities that govern both. One key biological reality that Francis mentioned was “sexuality and the family.” He asks us to remember that at a very basic level, we are created male and female and we are born into families. In ignoring the natural world, we have come to ignore these social truths.

Approaching the election, let’s briefly look at the parties and how they stand on the environment. In my opinion, no candidate offers a truly Catholic platform, though some are preferable to others.

True to form, the Democratic candidates place a bigger emphasis on the environment, mentioning climate change and investing in new, clean energy sources such as electric and solar…”

“The importance of human life, even within the environmental issues, is paramount. Catholics and Christians in general are frequently criticized for voting exclusively on “social issues” like abortion and gay marriage and ignoring other facets of human life. And this criticism is widely true: we do vote on the life issue, but it is not to ignore other important realities. On the contrary, all aspects of human life and the common good are built on a fundamental understanding of the goodness of life and when it starts. The Catholic Church’s teaching is highly reasonable: that life starts from the moment the body comes into existence, which is conception. Without respect for life and where it comes from, there can be no true respect of any other human good. And if we are placing the environment in opposition to humanity instead of integrating the two, there is a problem.”

Full article here.

Question: what is most important to you when voting? Particular issues, if so, then what? Or the candidates themselves and their personal integrity?