Why Catholics should oppose President Obama's Health Care Reform

I am a young man with a family that wants to place my children in a Catholic School, but I don't have the money to support the tuition. My parents and grandparents could all afford Catholic schools, their wives did not work, and they don't have a PhD like me. Why can't I afford to send my children?

Well, I am taxed to pay social security and medicare, entitlement programs that subsidize the elderly, which programs will not exist in the same form and give provide the same benefits for me when I retire. My property taxes go to pay for public schools, schools in which I have no say over how sexual morality is taught to my children. The Democratic plan wants to force insurance companies to subsidize preexisting conditions and promises them that they will force more Americans into the plan to help defray the cost. So, a young person already subsidizing the medical and retirement cost of the elderly now has to subsidize the preexisting conditions of those who are seriously ill? Am I acting selfishly for wanting to keep more of my money to place my children in a Catholic school? Or for wishing those more fortunate than I who have money and can donate to Catholic schools not to be excessively taxed?

Then there is this problem of deficits. The Democratic plan wants to subsidize all those who cannot afford insurance currently, and to pay for this they will cut Medicare payments to doctors. Really? My mother cannot find a doctor to help her with her arthritis in Alaska because she cannot get covered by her employer since she is eligible for Medicare, and in Alaska, she cannot find a doctor who will take new Medicare patients because they are so underpaid by Medicare. So the trick is not to include this in the bill to keep down cost, and add it in later after the health care bill passes, because who wants to see doctor's refusing more patients.

What are the consequences of these trillion dollar deficits? If the State of California is any indication, they borrowed money every year and ignored their deficits until they became so great that they had to cut services and pass the biggest percentage tax hike in American history. I lost my per child credit in California, and because I had five children, my taxes increased by $1500 a year, $200 for each child, plus the increase in income and sales tax and vehicle license fees that applied to everyone else. That's $1500 less that I could use to send my children to Catholic schools. And California also made draconian cuts to their public schools to help pay for their irresponsible deficits. Many economists are already predicting that the federal government will have to raise taxes across the board in a few years because of the huge deficits they are running now.

Admittedly, the deficits are the fault of both parties attempts to transform America into a socialistic society. The Republicans passed the expansion of Medicare prescription drug bill. Both parties are responsible for the trillion dollar financial institution bailout, which began with the "good" intention that every American should be able to own their own homes regardless of whether or not they could afford it, and later exploded into a booming housing market in which mortgage companies, financial institutions and saavy investors made huge short term profits and if lucky got out before the peak, if unlucky defaulted or received government bailouts. Then there is the stimulus, government money to extend unemployment benefits and health care to those who lost their jobs, free government money to encourage people to buy homes or cars (Cash for Clunkers) and create "green" jobs. All these government interventions need to be paid for at some time, and we have chosen to pay for them in the future. And our entitlement system is already on a collision course for insolvency. Like California, the federal government will have to raise taxes across the board and cut services.

We simply cannot to continue to ask American families to subsidize the healthcare of more Americans.
Already, our money is or will be taken away from us completely by the government to subsidize the poor, the elderly, the unemployed, the public schools, those who can't afford to own a home themselves, financial institutions, automobile companies, and those who take the governments free money to buy homes or cars to stimulate the economy and create green jobs. And young American families will be left to pay for all these underfunded socialistic goals. Is this a selfish attitude? Am I selfish for wanting to take care of my own children before paying the government to supply the needs of others? My own and many other young families I know simply do not have the resources to send our children to Catholic schools, nor to tithe our income and give to the Church or any other charity. Further, it is sad for me to acknowledge that after spending more than ten years teaching in Catholic education, I could no longer afford to continue because Catholic schools simply do not have the money to pay their employees a living wage. As America is transformed more and more into a socialistic society, Catholic education is going to be put out of business, if not the whole Catholic Church and its social services, just like it has in Europe. In the not to distant past, it was the Church that provided both education and health care to millions of Americans, and not just Catholics. Today, it looks like the Catholic Church in America may be going out of business.

civility and truth in the health care debate

While listening to C-SPAN radio, I was struck by the deceitful strategy adopted by the democrats in Congress to pass health care reform.

First, they argue for the free market principle of expanding choice. A public option will give Americans more choice in health care. How can they advertise choice when a majority of them want a single payer system, but realize that this is not politically expedient right now. They also seem uninterested in the Republican idea of purchasing health insurance across state lines.

Second, they argue that universal coverage will curb the upward spiraling cost of healthcare. They also echo President Obama's promise that if you like your health care plan you can keep it. Consider how they plan on paying for the plan. They will cut Medicare payments to providers, and add new taxes on medical supplies and procedures. After listening to the director of a hospital on C-SPAN radio, Medicare payments do not cover the cost of services sufficiently. Therefore, hospitals must make up this loss by charging insurance carriers inflated prices. These costs get passed onto the consumer. Thus, those with health insurance are presently subsidizing those on Medicare, Medicaid and the uninsured who use the emergency rooms. Thus, the Congressional plans propose to pay for the expansion of coverage, through taxes and Medicare cuts, will be passed onto the insurance companies, and then onto the consumer in terms of higher premiums. Will you still like your health care plan over the public option if the cost doubles in the next five years when this bill goes into effect? Is this real choice?

Further, they paint the insurance companies as evil for denying coverage for preexisting conditions. If the goal is to expand health care coverage, both to more people and also in terms of covering preexisting conditions, and also to control cost, the math doesn't add up unless services be denied to some people. This provoked former Gov. Palin's "death panel" remark. Although no mention is made of this in the bill, Governor Palin is looking at the matter with foresight, one of the chief marks of wisdom.

Again, I am not surprised by the rhetoric. The norm of political speech seems to be, identify the area in which you are weak, and portray it as your strength. Thus, the socialists market their plan as increasing choice, when in fact their goal is a single payer system. Those who hide their intentions behind their rhetoric, pinned the phrase: "Bush lied, people died", on their political opponent. If you have problems telling the truth, call your opponent a liar. And universal health care proponents have a big problem with Gov. Palin's remark seizing on how this plan will eventually affect the elderly, because she rhetorically claimed ground that they want for themselves. This might have provoked freshman representative Alan Grayson of Florida's comment about Republicans want grandma to die quickly.

The sad truth is America is in trouble. Given our debt, our economic troubles, and the increasing number of retirees in the next few decades, we cannot continue to look the other way and pretend things are going to be alright. California is the model socialistic state. The state opted out of the 1994 welfare reform, there were many subsidized programs for low income households, there was generous compensation for the unemployed and those injured on the job, there were generous subsidies for college tuition, and now that is all gone. State workers were generously compensated, and guaranteed generous pensions. For example, state prison guards made a base salary of $70K, and with overtime, many were making six figures. Can the private sector match these benefits? Since the 1990s, the private sector has continually streamlined itself with respect to compensation, wages and benefits, to stay competitive. Thus, as government fattens itself, and guarantees its compensation through public employee union contracts, while the private sector becomes lean, eventually the lean cows of the private sector cannot support all the government obligations and the system collapses. What is happening in California after years of socialism is a sign of what will happen to the US at large in the not to distant future. And because California cannot legally cancel many of its obligations, it was forced to dramatically raise taxes and cut services. I predict, in ten years from the passage of this health care bill in Congress, taxes on the middle class will increase significantly, and health care benefits will be dramatically curtailed.