Bishop Nickless: No Health Care Reform Better than Wrong Health Care Reform

By Kathleen Gilbert
8/19/2009
LifeSiteNews (www.lifesitenews.com)

The Church will not accept any legislation that mandates coverage, public or private, for abortion, euthanasia, or embryonic stem-cell research.

Bishop Nickless said that H.R. 3200, as it stands, fails both by moral and prudential standards. He confirmed that the bill circumvents the Hyde amendment.

Facebook Delicous MySpace

Twitter Stumble Digg

More Destinations

SIOUX CITY, Iowa (LifeSiteNews.com) - In his latest column, Bishop R. Walter Nickless of the Diocese of Sioux City joined a growing number of Catholic leaders in stated opposition to the Obama health care legislation, which is poised to expand abortion by mandating abortion coverage and providing taxpayer subsidies to abortion providers.

Niclkess also noted that the Catholic Church has no position for or against any kind of health care distribution, and argued that the structure proposed by the legislation would ultimately be detrimental to distributing health care according to need.

"No health care reform is better than the wrong sort of health care reform," wrote Nickless in a column posted on the diocesan website.

Nickless noted that, amid the "confusion and inaccurate information being thrown around," he and his "brother bishops have described some clear 'goal-posts' to mark out what is acceptable reform, and what must be rejected."

"First and most important, the Church will not accept any legislation that mandates coverage, public or private, for abortion, euthanasia, or embryonic stem-cell research," he said. "We refuse to be made complicit in these evils, which frankly contradict what 'health care' should mean.

"As a corollary of this, we insist equally on adequate protection of individual rights of conscience for patients and health care providers not to be made complicit in these evils," he continued. "A so-called reform that imposes these evils on us would be far worse than keeping the health care system we now have."

Some Catholic organizations, including the Catholic Health Association and Catholic Charities USA, responded to the health care push on Capitol Hill by advocating "health care reform" in the abstract, while not addressing the abortion-promoting and other troubling aspects of President Obama's legislation. The groups responded to criticism by stating that they did not support abortion-promoting legislation or any particular measure; however, none backed down from their original July statement calling upon legislators to enact health care reform "immediately."

Bishop Nickless' column also refuted the notion that the Catholic Church considers "health care," as such, to be a natural human right. Because health care does not come "from God directly" as does the natural bounty of food, water, and air, he said, health care falls in the realm of a political right, as it comes "from our human efforts, creativity, and compassion."

"As a political right, health care should be apportioned according to need, not ability to pay or to benefit from the care," wrote Nickless. How best to administer care to meet this need, he said, falls under the category of "prudential judgement" - in other words, a decision not directly subject to a moral imperative one way or the other.

Nickless emphasized that the Church "does not teach that government should directly provide health care," and argued that making health care "subject to federal monopolization" was a prudentially poor decision. "While a government monopoly would not be motivated by profit," he opined, "it would be motivated by such bureaucratic standards as quotas and defined 'best procedures,' which are equally beyond the influence of most citizens."

"Private, religious hospitals and nursing homes, in particular, should be protected, because these are the ones most vigorously offering actual health care to the poorest of the poor," the bishop noted.

Nickless said that H.R. 3200, as it stands, fails both by moral and prudential standards. He confirmed that the bill circumvents the Hyde amendment - which prohibits federal funds from going to abortions - both by creating a flow of funds outside the scope of the Hyde amendment, and by "creatively manipulating" how other funds are given to abortion groups. Nickless also criticized the "public insurance option" proposed by the bill, saying that it would give smaller employers a financial incentive to dump employees into the public insurance. "This will saddle the working classes with additional taxes for inefficient and immoral entitlements," he said.

"I encourage all of you to make you voice heard to our representatives in Congress," Nickless urged. "Tell them what they need to hear from us: no health care reform is better than the wrong sort of health care reform.

"Insist that they not permit themselves to be railroaded into the current too-costly and pro-abortion health care proposals. Insist on their support for proposals that respect the life and dignity of every human person, especially the unborn. And above all, pray for them, and for our country." (Click here to see Bishop Nickless' discussion of health care reform in full.)

Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, and Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker, Ore. have also given strong statements in opposition to the current form of the legislation President Obama has been aggressively pushing on Capitol Hill.

- - -

LifeSiteNews.com is a non-profit Internet service dedicated to issues of culture, life, and family. It was launched in September 1997. LifeSiteNews Daily News reports and information pages are used by numerous organizations and publications, educators, professionals and political, religious and life and family organization leaders and grassroots people across North America and internationally.

Keywords:

NEWSLETTERS »

Rate This Article

Was this helpful to you? Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful at All

Would you be interested in more articles like this? Yes, I am Interested No, I am not Interested

Rate Article

1 - 10 of 10 Comments

Warren Champlain
3 years ago
I was 12 when Medicare was being debated. At that time, nearly two-thirds of all seniors lacked health insurance. Private health insurance plans were dreadful, taking premiums from seniors and paying little for their health care needs. That's when President Johnson proposed Medicare.

I remember hearing Ronald Reagan say that if Medicare passed, we would no longer be free men and women.

Our family doctor told my parents if Medicare passed he and other doctors would quit practicing medicine and hospitals would begin closing.

None of that came to pass. (Our family doctor practiced another 20 years before he retired.) The Commonweath Fund poll shows 80 percent of seniors are satisfied with Medicare, and since Medicare patients tend to be much sicker than the general population and requiring of more care, that poll is highly meaningful.

Studies show that Medicare delivers care at a lower cost than private insurers. Yes, there are warnings about its solvency, but Medicare has existed since 1965, and it will continue to exist in the future.

Medicare IS government-run health care. It is "socialized medicine." And it has served our nation well.
Stephen Toth
3 years ago
Trying to to legislate your view of morality on the whole nation is wrong.
"No health care reform is better than the wrong sort of health care reform". Tell that to a poor working man whose wife or child is gravely ill. Sell a chalice or two to pay for his medical bills. What hypocrisy.
Mike
3 years ago
I greatly appreciate Bishop Nickless contribution to the debate and I agree with him on all accounts. However, I believe the distinction between a political and natural right are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. What people fail to understand is the definition of a "right". Period.

A "right" is not the possession of a good or service. A "right" is a state of my being that cannot be denied by other people.

For example:

I have a natural God given right to be married and the Government cannot deny me this right. However, if I am alone and unable to find a bride, it is not the Government's responsibility to provide me with one nor is it an offense against the common good if the Government doesn�t tax the general populace to rectify the matter.

I have a political right to bear arms - the ability to defend myself and my family by whatever means at my disposal. However, if I cannot afford a firearm, it is not the Government�s responsibility provide one for me.

No one has a �right� to be given health care as a service. They have a right to pursue it if it is within their means. But if people cannot afford it, the issue is not whether or not the Government should pay for it. The issue is: are the costs of healthcare just and, if not, how can we legitimately decrease costs so those who wish to pursue it can afford it.
john harrod
3 years ago
Perhaps those like Bishop Nickless who see little role for the state in attaining the common good should re-aquaint themselves with Pope John XXIII's encyclical "Pacem in Terris." It was published on April 11, 1963. This quote is from Section 64, Subtitled "Duty of Promoting Rights of Individuals."

"The public administration must therefore give considerable care and thought to the question of social as well as economic progress, and to the deveolopment of essential services in keeping with the expansion of the productive system. Such services include road-building, transportation, communications, drinking-water, housing, MEDICAL CARE, (emphasis mine)ample facilities for the practice of religion and aids to recreation."

This encylical still carries the full weight of church authority behind it and commands our respect.
Mike Quinn
3 years ago
The Bishops in the past have not said anything about the political realm of the right to health care. Here are two writings from the Catholic Bishops about the fundamental human right to health care. Is it or isn�t it? I guess it depends on what point they want to make. If the Bishops said that it is a fundamental right, what right does Bishop Nickless have to change what they said. If the Bishops are teaching us through the USCCB why do others say something different? Also what about the tens of millions living Americans with disabilities that the Republicans cut the budgets for the past 8 years as well as the tens of thousands of Americans that die each year due to inadequate or no health care. Is it pro-life to ignore these peoples needs or are Catholics who oppose health care just as guilty as abortion providers in murdering innocent Americans. Hmmm let�s see� in the 8 years of the Republican Conservative administration at least 160,000 Americans died to inadequate or no health care and the Conservatives were silent, the so-called pro-lifers were silent. Their blood is on your hands as well as the rest of Americans who will die this year without sufficient heath care.

Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development USCCB July 17, 2009

(Sent to all member of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate)
cc: White House and Department of Health and Human Services

Access for all: Reform efforts must begin with the principle that decent health care is not a privilege, but a right and a requirement to protect the life and dignity of every person. All people need and should have access to comprehensive, quality health care that they can afford, and it should not depend on their stage of life, where or whether they or their parents work, how much they earn, where they live, or where they were born.

What does "Faithful Citizenship" say about health care?
"Affordable and accessible health care is an essential safeguard of human life and a fundamental human right.
andy
3 years ago
I wish we have more John P. Clark adn Dave Rusch to lead a discussion like this. It is to Clark's advantage that he read the whole H.R., and I hope that he continues to share the wisdom he got from it, such as the one he said in his comment here.

I wonder how the Bishops will respond to Dave's very practical solution to help other people. It is true that we have responsibility towards our neighbors. We ought to be good samaritans to our neighbors especially those who are in need, marginalized, and/or vulnerable.

It is one thing to critize or show the flaw of the health care reform bill and another thing to offer an alternative. I wonder what the alternative of the bishops is?

Andy
Dave Rusch
3 years ago
Many years ago I spent considerable time and effort calculating the number of poor families in the US and how we might respond to their needs. I wrote a letter to the Denver Catholic Register with my conclusion. Briefly, I suggested that, if each parish adopted 2 poor families, poverty in the US would vanish. I suggested that the size of the parish (or church, as I would invite our Protestant friends to participate) determine how many families they would support. The average was two/parish. The support would include all that was necessary for them to be a part of the community: food, job opportunities from those in the parish, education, and health care. Each parish would voluntarily provide all the essentials. And poverty vanishes and the Good Samaritans (as we are called to be) provide all to them.(isn�t this the object lesson the parable?) The response was less than favorable from readers of the DCR. I do not wish to go there now but just to say that I believe this approach is more relevant and appropriate today then ever.

The current �crises� in health care is a perfect example of the need for action on the part of our church. I am of the belief that the poor are not the responsibility of government, that Caesar�s involvement can only mean destruction of the dignity and sanctity of human life. I cannot help but wonder why the Bishops, who I admire greatly on many issues and in their depth of faith, support Caesar�s approach to health care if certain conditions are met. I continue to be amazed that the pressure they (rightly) promoted to resist FOCA is not being brought to the forefront in the current climate where Caesar is attempting to confiscate 10% of the Nation�s wealth. Is the sanctity of life less important for the unborn and the vulnerable if there is the promise of an underlying desirable (in their view) reward, in this case health care for everyone? And what convinces that there is really basic health care for everyone? I have certainly not been convinced.

Let me just say: The right to life is a fundamental right. Nothing precedes it, nothing is more profoundly important than this. This said, the extension of this fundamental right to other areas that support this fundamental principle is not so simple, nor might it be correct. In my humble opinion, a �fundamental right� is one which you or I can enjoy without the imposition on others to make it happen. No other needs to be made to provide the umbra to my right to life. It is, without imposition on others. Any extension of this, for example, to the provision of food, shelter, or health care, as a basic extension to my right to life, requires either the virtue of charity or compulsion to provide these life necessities. I submit that compulsion is outside the proper avenue of nurture, unless we see Caesar as a morally necessary player.

If Caesar is a necessary and invited participant, then how do we reconcile the compulsion that follows with the Parable of the Good Samaritan? Remember those who expect rewards from Caesar must pay the price, and it will no doubt cost the innocent their lives.

The Catholic Church provides wonderful health care for about 10% of the population of the US. Is it not possible for the Church to also provide health insurance for those in need? Remember the two families per parish description at the beginning of this little essay. Can not we provide the needed help or even form a national health insurance company that provides insurance on one�s ability to pay? Can this be the more appropriate answer than the current interesting but, to me, not understandable, approach to helping the uninsured? Surely we can do better than Caesar.
John P. Cllark
3 years ago
I�ve read all 1,018 glorious pages of H.R. 3200. And, I must admit, it�s a real piece of work. This house bill is cleverly crafted, purposely vague, and its political allies are finely tuned masters of deception. If such linguistic syntax and associated rules of construction are indeed necessary, then I extend my very best to the various layers of legislative bureaucracy in their collective efforts to craft this bill into law and the subsequent discretionary efforts of the various layers of judicial bureaucracy to interpret them. The bottom line is that the government has the latitude to do as they please. Sadly, this includes the implementation of abortion mandates funded by "we, the people".

There can be no denying that the current healthcare bill leaves the door wide open for mandated universal abortion coverage at taxpayer expense. Using taxpayer dollars to fund something as egregious as abortion is deplorable, outrageous, and downright evil. What is so outrageous and disgusting is the fact that most abortion procedures can�t be categorized as healthcare. Why? Because abortion is the destruction of life; healthcare is the preservation of life.

I absolutely refuse to support a government that believes that it�s a woman's constitutional right to choose and to decide whether or not her unborn child lives or dies. How dare the government, and others, continue to abuse and spin the US Constitution in such a despicable manner merely to satisfy their misguided constituents (e.g.,PP) and/or their own self serving interests. It is the routine abuse of freedom and rights that must end as it has no place in a civilized free society.

Sadly, America is collapsing under the weight of its own sins and frivolous spending isn�t going to garner an ounce of absolution. What America needs is discipline and a return to moral principles. Their demonstrated inability to engage in responsible freedom of choice is beyond all reasonable comprehension.

And so, I continue to ask: How is it that so many morally bankrupt people end up in politics or in other positions of authority? Case in point�

Not long ago, Obama told an audience that he has two daughters and that he wouldn�t want them to be punished with a baby if they made a mistake. To wit...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNzmly28Bmg&feature=related

Punished with a baby? I didn't realize that a baby was punishment. Is pregnancy a mistake? I don�t think so and here�s why. A mistake occurs when one adds 73 + 89 and manages to get 182. It usually occurs in an instant in time and is completely unintended. Make no mistake, pregnancy is no mistake. Sadly, we�ve gotten to the point in this country where pregnancy, abortions, homicides, rapes, and animal cruelty are trivialized by labeling them �mistakes�. They aren�t mistakes! Although we live in a �throwaway society�, bearing children is a gift from God not to be taken lightly. A precious unborn child is hardly a disposable item that can be casually discarded despite beliefs to the contrary of grossly misguided and evil human beings. It�s morally wrong unless, arguably, there are serious mitigating issues of life and death. Absent these mitigating criteria, it seems that Obama would absolve his daughters of any and all responsibility and accountability by not allowing them to be punished with a baby. How is this teaching them morals and values? What happened to his promises of transparency, responsibility, and accountability? Don't these attributes apply to his own family? His statements are very hypocritical. And so, Mr. Obama serves as a splendid example of exactly what is wrong with America today! Sadly, it�s no wonder that so many grossly misguided people identify with him and voted him president. His winning the popular vote by a significant margin is very disconcerting at best and certainly raises a huge red flag concerning the liberally permissive direction of our country.

I can only lower my head in shame every time I hear some politician say: �God Bless America�. Why should He? America is becoming increasingly evil and has done an outstanding job of removing Him from every public building, including schools. What is so great about a nation that deems fit to butcher children or allows vicious criminals to roam its streets placing good citizens at risk and in harms way all in the name of freedom and rights?
Pam
3 years ago
I hope and pray that each of the Bishops in all of the Dioceses of the USA publically speak to their diocese--like some of our Bishops have. We need to see/ hear them publically speak out. It gives more Catholics the support they need to speak out, as well.
Liz
3 years ago
We need to pray for the Cardinal and these courageous bishops. We need to pray for all church leaders to be led by the Spirit and also guide their flocks in the same courageous manner as these brave men. Catholics today need strong leadership. Sitting on the sidelines doesn't cut it anymore. Pray for courage for our priests, bishops, cardinals and the pope

Prev1Next

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Name *

Email *

Comment *

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment