Showing posts with label Contraception. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Contraception. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Christus Medicus and Single Payer

On Saturday, March 16, I went to a talk at the Newman Center in Pittsburgh titled:


Dr. Brian Donnelly, MD
It was given by pediatrician Brian Donnelly, MD.  He spoke mostly of the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) contraception and abortion mandate.  He did not directly address the need for comprehensive health but directed everyone to the Christus Medicus Foundation so I thought I would check them out on the web.  They are hosting a this summer conference called where Rep. Jeff Fortenberry R-NE is scheduled to speak and Sarah Palin protege Sen Ted Cruz R-TX is invited to speak.  

They claim "To actively promote Christ-centered health care in the public square and in the marketplace" and to even have their own insurance plan available to foundation members that is in accordance with the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).  An audience member (not me) pointed out that the USCCB has called for public health insurance since 1920 and Dr. Donnelly stated that he "was fully aware of their position.  In fact, Mr. Obama took advantage of the Church’s stance to push the legislation through."  The brochure of the foundation plan called Active Care can be read here and does not sound that different from other private plans with deductibles and copays that can be purchased except that they are fighting the contraception mandate in the ACA.  He did state how the healthcare system should not be profit driven.

After his talk I asked him if he was aware of the study that estimated that 45,000 Americans died each year due to a lack of health insurance (see supporting info in related posts below).  He said he was not but he would be happy to look at it.  We exchanged business cards.  If he is receptive to the notion of born Americans dying under the current system, I will tell him about the economic impact study for the state of Pennsylvania which State Sen. Jim Ferlo introduced today in Harrisburg which shows that care can be administered more efficiently.  I hope Dr. Donnelly looks at how Lawrence O'Donnell's commentary (from Feb 10, 2012) on how a Single payer system could avoid the dilemma over the contraception mandate forcing religious institutions to cover things that they don't believe in.  The ideological gap in this country over abortion and sexuality may not be bridgeable but I hope that it can be overcome to find a just healthcare system.


Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

**Related Posts**

Santorum: No One Has Ever Died Because They Didn’t Have Health Care | The New Civil Rights Movement



STOP Obamacare in Pennsylvania and the Uninsured



Economic Impact Study Press Release


Religious Freedom and Single Payer Health Care Reform


Check out this great MSN video: How America got into birth control mess

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Religious Freedom and Single Payer Health Care Reform

Karen Santorum before she met Rick and had 7 kids
With the second anniversary of the Affordable Care Act, the protests are heating up and the Supreme Court is about to hear arguments about the case.  In Pittsburgh on Friday there was a rally titled "Stand Up for Religious Freedom" which was about the HHS mandate for employers and religious institutions to cover contraception, sterilization and morning after pills like RU-486.  The speeches in the videos (taken by Patricia Newman Hahn, their counterpart to Julie Sokolow) were restricted to the mandate though I believe that many in the crowd are also opposed to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or any other "socialized medicine" while an estimated 98% of Catholic women including Karen Santorum use contraception at one time or another.  

While the Catholic Church (including Bishop Zubik) has been vocal in it's opposition to the mandate, it has supported universal health care coverage.  For example, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has criticized the ACA because it does not cover illegal immigrants and promoted events like Cover the Uninsured Week.  They have issued many other statements in favor of comprehensive reform except when it relates to matters of abortion and contraception.  Pope Benedict himself has supported universal health care, except for abortion and contraception of course.


I posted an editorial earlier about Lawrence O'Donnell's editorial about how the whole HHS mandate controversy would be moot under a single payer system as employers would not have to worry about providing coverage.  Would they still campaign against it being paid for?

**Update**

Today, June 8 at noon, there will be more Stand Up for Rallies in Mellon Square Pittsburgh and other places throughout PA and the US.  Info is below.

Cities and Towns Participating in the June 8 Rally

Monday, March 12, 2012

Santorum: Against Obamacare and Contraception

Recently I have read an article about Rick Santorum, his opposition to Obamacare, and the fact that it was the trigger for him joining the presidential race.  Rick Santorum never ceases to amaze with his intentional, ignorant opposition to Obamacare, a set of laws that will actually benefit his three year old disabled daughter and many disabled children around the country.  Santorum is staunchly against Obamacare, even though it was Obamacare that will essentially force health insurance companies to insure the disabled.  I am confused on why Santorum would be against the Obamacare reforms when his family is an example of why this type of change is necessary within our health care system.  According to his tax return papers, Santorum’s family still racked up about one hundred thousand dollars’ worth of medical bills even after their private insurer covered most of the expenses for their disabled daughter.  Obviously Santorum was able to afford the payment required on these medical bills, but what about the rest of the people that would not be able to afford this type of payment? It would force most families in to bankruptcy. One family that isn’t fortunate enough to have the money to cover expenses of a disabled child is the Gourley family, whose son suffered complications while in the womb and suffered brain damage because of it.  Their son Colin needs round the clock attention, constant treatment, therapy sessions and other costly medical expenses.  These are expenses that they could barely afford, and on top of that, his father’s new employer's insurance policy would not cover Colin because of his disability.  The new policies within Obamacare would force insurance companies to insure people like Colin, which I think is something that needs to be done.

People like Santorum who oppose Obamacare and any type of governmental healthcare aid for those who cannot afford it just sicken me.  They believe that everyone has the luxury of paying a vast amount of money to a private insurer that is usually reluctant to provide any type of monetary assistance if it seems it would be too costly on their part.  But isn't the point of paying for insurance to make sure that, when you need some type of medical treatment, this insurance will guarantee some of the cost, if not all of the cost, be taken care of?  Santorum believes it is a Christian thing to experience suffering and that is a natural part of life.  While I agree that suffering is a natural part of life, is it right to force other people to suffer because of your unwillingness to provide them with some form of governmental humanitarian aid through taxes?  According to WaPo Interactive International Cost Graphic, the costs for most medical procedures within the United States are at times more than double as compared to other countries listed on the graphic.  Some of the costs are reasonable compared to what other countries are charging, but there are other procedures such as an appendectomy which is priced at around thirteen thousand dollars.  The amount certain procedures cost within this country is insanely high.
 
Another issue that I want to talk about is Rick Santorum's stance against contraception.  If Santorum had his way he would do away with birth control and abortion because he personally believes that these things are harmful to women, when in actuality they are more helpful.  Here is where we see personal morals get mixed in with what should be deemed right for everyone else.  If Santorum believes that he can attain the presidency by attacking the health care and contraception of the masses then he is in for a rude awakening.  These politicians are supposed to represent the people and do what is best for the people.  Well, government or universal health care coverage is what we need, not higher medical and insurance bills from private corporations.

Sunday, March 11, 2012

Imitate Debate


For me the recent bruhaha over the Rush Limbaugh/Sandra Fluke brings back memories of another one from 2010 in which Sarah Palin (who was teasing with running for the GOP Pres nod at the time) was calling for President Obama to fire then White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.  Emanuel called critics of the Affordable Care Act who favor the public option/single payer and expletive related to the developmentally disabled (the politically correct term for the mentally retarded) which shall not be repeated here but is in the funny clip below. 


This was one time where I had to agree with Palin that Emanuel should be fired.  Not only because I sympathize her because of her son with Down's Syndrome but because it is also simply bad politics which former community organizer Obama should know.  Many of these liberal activists worked very hard to get Obama elected.  Rush Limbaugh also reiterated Emanuel's comments (Palin excused Limbaugh for being "subtle" as can be seen in the clip above).  Emanuel did apologize to Sargent Shriver, head of the Special Olympics, but not to any healthcare activists and he is now mayor of Chicago.

For him to take the same attitude as Limbaugh toward Obama's most loyal supporters is the epitome of bad politics.  Is it any wonder that the Democrats lost the US House in 2010?  Colbert can get away with calling Palin the expletive that Emanuel and Limbaugh used on activists because they are not on the same team.  Bill Maher can get away on Real Time with calling Bristol Palin worse than what Limbaugh called Fluke because his HBO show doesn't have sponsors.  Imagine if Limbaugh calls Bristol Palin or one of her other children a sexually derogatory term on his radio show?  Sarah Palin could raise a tizzy and possibly get him fired because she has pull with his base. 

Bill Maher, Glenn Beck, Keith Olbermann, and Don Imus all lost their shows after making controversial public statements and are now continuing to make them in less high profile shows.  All of this pseudo debate inhibits any discussion of real issues, such as health care and single payer, which keeps the public sufficiently distracted.  (This post originally appeared on CSI without Dead Bodies and has been modified here.) 

**Related Posts**


Why does the right demonize Nancy Pelosi?


Bullying & Society

 

Auf Wiedersehen Glenn Beck, Hello Merv Griffin 

Friday, February 10, 2012

Check out this great MSN video: How America got into birth control mess

Two nights ago MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell discussed why the whole birth control/Catholic Church "controversy" would be moot under a Single Payer system.  (Obama just announced that religious employers won't have to provide contraceptives, insurers will) Why didn't he say this when these deals were being made?



I saw this image on Facebook posted by a staunch Ron Paul, an Obstetrician, supporter and had to post it because it's so silly.  It resembles a WWI propaganda poster.  Yes what happens in the womb is important for the child's well being but what happens after birth is at least as important.  Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, when a Presidential candidate in March 2011, declared that his state was the "safest to be an unborn child."  As Jon Stewart points out his state is the least safe to be a newborn child.  Most of this "debate" is really just petty pandering to people deepest fears, like death panels, to prevent them from enacting the very thing that can improve their lives.