I've had it

[aelfgyfu_mead]

I know this is the second time in about four weeks I've said "I try to avoid politics" on my blog only to touch on what might be considered political, but I've been pushed a little far. As I've mentioned before, I have ties to St. Vincent de Paul, a Catholic lay society working to help the poor: I have family members with literally decades of service through SVDP, a relative who had a paid job with them for a number of years, and I myself have worked with my own parish's chapter sometimes, as well as donating financially on a regular basis.

The last straw in the health care debacle debate is that I'm hearing members of SVDP and some other Catholic organizations are getting shelled because the SVDP US National supports health care reform (read statements here).



I'll put my cards on the table. I support health care reform. I think the Obama plan is the best we can do right now, although frankly I would support far more. I have a number of friends in the UK. I know National Health has its problems, but honestly, none of them have told me they'd trade it for our system, and a few have told me they never would. (Feel free to comment if you're one who would trade and simply never mentioned it, because it's not on LJ that I've had these conversations!) I've even been treated in the UK: I became ill while in England for a conference, spent the night in A&E, and would compare it favorably with my treatment in US hospitals. Yes, I had to wait three hours for treatment: but a) that three hours included getting much of my information before showing me to a cubicle; and b) I waited five hours for an emergency appendectomy right here in Tampa, folks. I didn't pay a dime for my treatment or the medication they handed me before I left in the morning; they didn't even charged when they faxed my medical records to my doctor back home.

I say this so that I have no hidden agenda. I know people disagree with my position; I know friends disagree. I'm not primarily interested in arguing about health care here.

I am sick of the lies. The Obama plan would not give us "death squads"; it would neither encourage nor require euthanasia and abortion. I have heard of SVDP and other Catholic organizations fielding angry calls and letters asking them how they can be Catholic and support murder. A relative even told me of a pastor who almost refused to commission his parish's SVDP members because of the issue. These accusations are insane, and they are lies. The Obama plan offers voluntary end-of-life counseling...free. That's currently something people get by paying, and many health insurance plans do not cover it.

I am pro-life (if you're new to my journal, please do read my other entries on the topic to find out what that means to me, because often people jump to conclusions because of extremists they've heard claiming that name). I would not support a plan that introduced euthanasia and increased abortion. Indeed, I think extending insurance to women who do not have it may well decrease the incidence of abortion and make women's legal choice whether or not to bear a child a freer choice--it's not really a "free choice" if one feels one must have an abortion because giving birth would lead to poverty for mother and child.

Many other lies have been spread. My favorite is the idea that Stephen Hawking would be dead if he were in the UK using National Health. Yes, you read that right; follow the link. The piece to which I've linked has a tone that I don't agree with, but I have read the facts elsewhere; they are correct. I'm not going to debunk them all. I've actually just taken a short break from work because I've been getting distracted by this issue.

And I'm hearing about health care being rationed under Obama's plan. What? About 18% of Americans have no health insurance. In my county, the number has reached 21%. I have friends with no coverage. I have friends with poor coverage. I have a friend who needed medication for herself and her baby on a Friday afternoon; she got to the pharmacy at 5:15 pm and was told her insurance company would have to speak with both doctors before she could get the medications covered, and that wasn't going to happen. She paid out-of-pocket; she could afford that. What happens when the patient in question can't afford to pay out-of-pocket?

We already have rationed health care in this country.

By all means, let's debate health care (though don't compelled to do it here!). But let's be honest about what's at stake. You can argue against universal coverage, or you can argue against Obama's plan. But please don't tell me Obama's plan will set up death squads or tribunals, will start rationing health care in this country, or would kill Stephen Hawking.

Thanks for tolerating the rant. It may be that none of you needed to hear it, but I needed to say it.

Comments

[aelfgyfu_mead]

I can see a problem there. I certainly don't want back-alley abortions, which risk even more lives.

At the same time, those of us who are deeply opposed don't want to pay for abortion. Not everything that is legal has equal access. It's hard to find an example that's not trivial, so please pardon the inexact analogies: plastic surgery is perfectly legal, yet all people do not have equal access. Not all plastic surgery is based on vanity. Some women need breast reduction surgery because they have chronic pain and muscle strain from their breasts. As I understand it, not all insurers will cover that, even if a medical need can be shown. Chiropractic is perfectly legal. Some people have plans that offer full chiropractic benefits; mine offers partial; some offer none. (That's the situation in the States; I don't know about other countries.)

Part of the problem is that sex and gender enter into the equation. If you're pro-choice, it does seem deeply unfair that there are plans that pay for Viagra and even for hair growth treatments for men, but they don't pay for abortions for women. If you're pro-life, however, those may seem like very separate issues: abortion is a procedure that involves two lives--at the cost of one of them. No other procedure comes close. If a plan pays for prostate exams, it should pay for breast exams. If it pays for vasectomies, it should pay for tubal ligation. There really isn't an equivalent to abortion, however.

[sg-betty.livejournal.com]

That's the problem. In comperable choices that are trivial, I think we can all agree that things shouldn't be covered. But when it's not trivial, that's a different case.

I can see how someone who doesn't approve of abortion would not want to pay for it (although no one approves).

You gave an excellent example earlier of how one might look at it though. Not everyone approves of military spending, or wants their taxes to go there. They might disapprove of some actions of the military (ie involvement in Iraq) but support others (ie national defense). No one wants their borders unguarded.

While one might not wish to fund abortions through their taxes, a return to the days when women had abortions from untrained people wielding coat hangers and the like wouldn't be good either. That's where equal access comes in.

The people that would automatically be covered by a public system are exactly the people most likely to be forced to resort to such methods if they don't have equal access. You take access away from the wealthier segments of society and it wouldn't matter in a practical sense. They'd still manage to find a safe option. That's not true of the poorest.

[aelfgyfu_mead]

You see why I kind of find myself arguing up one side and down the other in this case? I don't want to pay for abortions, but in the end I can't avoid it, any more than I've avoided paying for executions and war in Iraq. I don't want to lose healthcare reform over this issue, which is an important part but still only a part of a much larger problem.

At the same time, I want to defend both the good will and the intelligence of those who are getting hammered from both sides, including those who would be much stricter about abortion than I would. From the right, Catholics who support health care reform are hearing that they are monsters who have turned their backs on the fundamental principles of their church. From the left, Catholics are hearing that if we don't support abortion, then we are not wanted as allies in the fight for health care--or against executions, or against war. I'm not making this up. Anna Quindlen has been among national columnists cautioning anti-war activists not to accept Catholics, Quakers, or other pro-lifers, because we'll turn on them in the end (I can't cite that column; it was in Newsweek years ago, but obviously I'm still annoyed, though I've heard as bad and maybe worse from others).

I don't want abortion to be the issue that prevents universal healthcare, and I've never been a single-issue voter on it.

I find striking a balance among competing pro-life values very, very difficult--and I'm almost never fully on the same side as my friends and even some family members.

[sg-betty.livejournal.com]

I have great sympathy for your position, and sympathize with it in a way that I have much greater difficulty in sympathizing with those who are both pro-life and pro-death penalty. I really applaud your effort to find a middle ground that works for you. We may not entirely agree, but I have great respect for your position, and your efforts to defend those of good will with varying points of view. This whole thing is just so much nastier than it needs to be.