Quantcast
Faith

Cardinal Dolan says Catholic church could be Obamacare's biggest 'cheerleader'

Comments

Return To Article
  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 3, 2013 1:24 p.m.

    I can understand Catholics not wanting to support Abortion in any way including not wanting to provide insurance benefits for it. I support them and anyone else who takes this stand. This because abortion is killing innocent children. This isn't a religious issue, it is a human decency issue.

    However it is stepping over the line to insist that they as an employeer not provide birth control coverage for people when everyone else in the nation gets it. Birth control isn't inherrently wrong. It is just an arbitary rule by one particular religion.

    A persons insurance coverage should not depend on the religion of their employer. For example Johovas Witness don't agree with blood transfusions. Christian Scientists don't believe in going to the doctor at all. If a person's employeer gets bought out by someone belonging to one of these churches is it not right that their health coverage be made to conform to the employeers religion.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 3, 2013 2:00 p.m.

    “Roman Catholic Cardinal Timothy Dolan says the church has been for universal health care for almost a century, but it can't support Obamacare as long as it forces Catholics to violate their conscience”.

    "We, the bishops of the United States, can you believe it, in 1919 came out for more affordable, more comprehensive, more universal healthcare. That's how far back we go in this battle, okay?”

    So, what happened to change your mind?
    The Catholic Church has been around for centuries.

    “We Catholics who are kind of among the pros when it comes to providing health care, do it because of our religious conviction, and because of the dictates of our conscience.”

    Would you do it because you are part of the human race and not for the expected reward when you get to heaven?

    I have no quarrel with the Catholic Church in what they believe and teach but I oppose their efforts to force other people to believe as they do. By extending their religion into their business activities they are playing dirty pool with the minds of the voluntary slaves they call employees.

  • American Patriot Eagle Mountain, UT
    Dec. 3, 2013 2:04 p.m.

    At least that's a move in the right direction. There's so much more wrong with the ACA (Obamacare) that the whole 'law' should be scrapped.

    There is nothing affordable about the ACA. It is a train wreck happening. Obama and his administration have dumped a completely asinine TAX program on the American people under the guise of an idiotic health law. Millions of U.S. get while others want their 'freebies' for life at the expense of others.

    This is insanity - pure and simple.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Dec. 3, 2013 3:48 p.m.

    I have two major problems with the Bishop’s statements – first is the quote below.

    “On the topic gay marriage becoming legal now in 16 states, Dolan said the church has been "out-marketed" and "caricatured as being anti-gay."”

    What is it with conservatives that whenever their views are not adopted en masse they automatically assume the unwashed masses are simply the victims of propaganda?

    Did it ever occur to the good bishop that many people have heard all the arguments, have weighed the relative merits (and values) of each position, have applied their own values as well as reason & logic to the issue and have intelligently decided his views are wrong?

    Second, 99% of all Americans (including 97% of Catholics) have used birth control. The people have spoken – they want it and are willing to pay into a prepaid plan to get it in the most convenient and cost effective manner.

    The Constitution created a government of, by, and for the People, not for institutional religion. In fact the 1st Amendment specifically forbids passing any law for the sole purpose of respecting a church’s views.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Dec. 3, 2013 3:48 p.m.

    If Dolan's otherwise robust support for the ACA hinges on scraping the contraceptives mandate, his prospects of being an effective Catholics leader don't look too promising. Holding steadfast may be its own reward, but for a purist it's about as good as it gets.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Dec. 3, 2013 10:38 p.m.

    Health care based on the dictates of conscience...yeah, not a lot of support in the free market for that; nobody makes a buck off of it.

  • KTar Boise, ID
    Dec. 3, 2013 10:58 p.m.

    This Affordable Care Act is a complete joke.
    Obama: "If you have an insurance plan that you like, great! You will be able to keep that plan."
    Me (a self employed, healthy, 28 year old that hasn't been to the doctor in 5 years): "Great, I get to keep my plan."
    My insurance provider: "Your insurance is no longer valid due to the Affordable Care Act. Please pick plan A, B, or C."

    As is turns out, plans A, B, and C are all way more EXPENSIVE than the plan I used to have. Thanks Mr. President...

    The Unaffordable Care Act is a breach of my constitutional rights as an American. I am now being forced by the Federal Government to purchase a product that I cannot afford.

    Revolution anyone?

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 1:12 a.m.

    It is normal that the Catholic Church would support Obamacare. Providing universal healthcare is part of Christian solidarity for all God's children. Sure, the one problem with contraceptives is understandable in view of Catholic doctrine. However, this is not a problem for the Mormon Church. So, why doesn't the Mormon Church proclaim its support for Obamacare?

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 5:31 a.m.

    @American Patriot 2:04 p.m. Dec. 3, 2013

    Did you think the same thing hen the far-right Heritage Foundation drafted it (including the insurance mandate) and Newt Gingrich promoted it legislatively in the 1990s as the far right alternative to Hillary Clinton's health care initiative? It was perfectly okay with the far right then. why is that different now? Oh -- I know -- it's because a Democrat took a far right proposal and is using it now.

  • FaifeauSam Lehi, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 7:01 a.m.

    The headline:‘Cardinal Dolan says Catholic church could be Obamacare's biggest 'cheerleader'’alone is misleading.' That statement in and of itself insinuates that the Catholic church supports Obamacare lock, stock and barrel. It would have been better to say something like "The Catholic church could support Obamacare if it weren't for the requirement of contraceptives." This is typical of headline writers who want to sensationalize everything. Why not say it like it is!!!???

  • Albert Maslar CPA (Retired) Absecon, NJ
    Dec. 4, 2013 7:22 a.m.

    There is one known doable single-payer plan that has a ghost of a chance to work, and that is Universal Medicare to replace ObamaCare.

    Institute a 3% National Sales Tax (NST) with NO exceptions for resale, charity, non-profits, religious, education, or government. The many cannot be continually supported by the diminishing few. A 3% NST may raise up to $7 Trillion annually, double the current budget, reduce national debt, spread tax burden to all residents, legal or not. Allocation: the 1st 1% toward Budget, the 2nd 1% toward Reduction of National Debt, the 3rd 1% for Universal MediCare for all legal residents.

    Dedicate first 1% NST to Universal Medicare to automatically eliminate most State Medicaid benefit requirements, costs, and overhead. State Medicaid mandated costs are virtually eliminated, reducing State budget shortfalls and tax requirements. One-third is dedicated to annual budget, and the final one-third is dedicated to reduction of National Debt. Income taxes are equalized for Personal and Business with a graduated tax rate of 20% max.

    MediCare is proven with existing superstructure, rules, and regulations, and if it works for seniors, it is good enough for automatically applying to all legal USA residents with Social Security Number, valid work or student visa etc.

  • maclouie Falconer, NY
    Dec. 4, 2013 7:31 a.m.

    I think everyone likes the idea of affordable health care. I like the idea of affordable cars and food.

    What people don't get is ObamaCare is not about health care, it's about health insurance. Not only that, it appears the government has become a reseller and not even providing the insurance coverage themselves. They have 'farmed" that out to the "private" insurance companies and even guaranteed payment to them for a minimum amount of sales. Again, our government, has become a reseller and reaps a commission tax for every policy it sells for the "private" insurance companies. It's not about care. If it was really about people dying (circa 2010) then why did "we" wait till 2014? The government should be sued for allowing people to die between 2010 and 2014. (wink-wink)

    Wish the real news media would tell it like it is. But we don't have a real news media anymore. It's all about dumbing down America whether through the schools or the media.

  • maclouie Falconer, NY
    Dec. 4, 2013 7:43 a.m.

    I'd be interested to know where Albert Maslar CPA (Retired) gets his numbers. I looked up "Total retail sales for the third quarter of 2013 were estimated at $1,140.8 billion" times 4 is 4.5 trillion.

    What economy is Albert Maslar CPA (Retired) talking about that would generate 7 trillion with a 3% NST? Is the CPA just throwing numbers around?

    However, maybe CPA is talking about the Gross National Product, in other words, CPA wants to tax food, books, and all services - EVERYTHING. And if so GPA for USA is only $15T. A 3% tax on $15T is $450B and not $7T. Who's CPA were you?

  • Kimber Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 7:54 a.m.

    I remember the passing of the law in 2010 and there was a call coming in to Washington from the Catholic Church to give it's approval. The church does do many good charitable acts for people and this is a good endorsement. But religion doesn't always face reality in general. I'm a woman who had to find out the realities of miscarriages and sadly, this is natures' type way of "aborting". I don't believe in abortion as an elected way of birth control, but I have to say that it is not "murder" if it is done before a certain stage (the legal stage). Beyond that it isn't legal or moral. The ACA has taken steps to help the dilemma some Catholics and others face when making decisions face that should be just between a woman, her doctor and other people of HER choice (not religion's choice) The health plan that's through the Catholic church (and possibly other religions) separates that part of a plan out and a person would have to choose that on their own.

  • maclouie Falconer, NY
    Dec. 4, 2013 8:16 a.m.

    Furry1993

    "the far-right Heritage Foundation drafted it (including the insurance mandate) and Newt Gingrich promoted it legislatively in the 1990s"

    Whether what you say is true or not it is moot as it never went anywhere regardless who proposed it. I am sure it would also have been deemed unconstitutional eventually and would have also been a train wreck. You need to remember, the government is not on our side and we need to remember who the enemy is and they could be red or blue. Our Founding Fathers warned us many times.

    As far as I can tell, all politicians, dems and repubs, play golf with each other. The squabbles are just for show.

  • Glen in the Bronx Bronx, NY
    Dec. 4, 2013 8:34 a.m.

    All insurers in New York State have been required to provide birth control coverage as part of their health plans for decades, including the plans provided by Archdiocese of New York to its employees...which has, in fact, done so. It's not clear to me why Dolan is taking this stance now?

  • maclouie Falconer, NY
    Dec. 4, 2013 8:38 a.m.

    Wow Ultra Bob!

    Your statement really made me pause: "Would you do it because you are part of the human race and not for the expected reward when you get to heaven?"

    But your statement is so wrong on many levels. First, you don't know what motivates people (ie don't know what is in their head) and second, there are plenty of examples how humans treat others when they are void of any knowledge or belief of God or an afterlife.

    I would think Catholics do it because they love the Lord, not because of an admission ticket to Heaven.

    So, upon further reflection, I would say I would look after number 1 (me) always and care less about the human race if there was no accountability in the afterlife and no Savior. As a Prophet once said: “The purpose of the church is to make bad men good and good men better.” ― David O. McKay.

  • JBQ Saint Louis, MO
    Dec. 4, 2013 9:06 a.m.

    As a Catholic Navy veteran from the same town as Dolan, I support his comments. What has made this into a big issue is the fact that "contraception" is not defined the same by the Obama Administration and the Catholic bishops. Abortion as a form of birth control is what this is all about. It must be remembered that Mr. Obama was in favor of extreme forms of abortion while an Illinois state senator and then U.S. Senator.

  • dski HERRIMAN, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 9:04 a.m.

    Coming home to roost, eh? Serving the poor has always been the one of the core beliefs for Catholics for centuries. Then the Cardinals and Archbishops in the US thought it would be best to shift that responsibility to the government instead of the church. So, they supported the government's social programs because they will no longer bear those burdens. Now that the Government place a requirement on their programs, the Cardinals and Archbishops are crying foul. Can't have it both ways. They failed to see, the government is not in the health care business to take care of people. They are in the health care business to control people. This is the core belief of Democarts for they think the government knows best what is good for the people. No Republican voted in favor of this mistake. Obamacare declares our current health insurance policies to be inadequate and substandard. Really? My health insurance policy is tailored to my needs. I do not need OB-GYN or maternity care for I am an old man. Had the Catholic Bishops and Cardinals use faith to advance their cause, they won't be calling foul today.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 9:14 a.m.

    I know that the Supreme Court says corporations are people. However, it is a bit of a stretch to say a business is Catholic or that it has a conscience.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Dec. 4, 2013 9:34 a.m.

    @maclouie – “there are plenty of examples how humans treat others when they are void of any knowledge or belief of God or an afterlife.”

    There are indeed and most are very positive – see Sweden, Japan, Norway, Canada, New Zealand, Denmark, Austria, France, Germany, Australia, etc., etc., etc…

    At the same time I think the world has many examples of how religion divides people and is responsible for much of the global conflicts we see today.

  • curbee North Las Vegas, NV
    Dec. 4, 2013 10:13 a.m.

    Still, after everything this administration has done to embarrass the citizens, you read a list of comments like this and find people who still believe in him and in his legacy program. It is inexplicable to me. I can't help but wonder what it wiould take for them to back away from him. Heads in sand.

  • slow down Provo, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 10:16 a.m.

    Raushenbush gives us the current rules of the game: gay marriage is won through the equation: gay = fundamental identity, or in this case: gay & married = fundamental identity. Identity politics as usual. The idea that marriage is a social institution that requires a social definition apart from what we may feel about this or that individual is simply ignored. And what about people who oppose redefining marriage because they feel their own identity enormously bound up with it? Isn't redefining marriage, by this logic, an act of personal animosity towards such people? (Think of those loving accusations of bigotry.) In any case, the issue is misdiagnosed. As a practical fact, one opposes or supports the _further spread_ of the legal & cultural redefinition of marriage. There is something more nuanced and messy about this state of affairs. By Raushenbush's thinking, however, the minute a single political body approves same-sex marriage, the entire world is automatically bigoted for not immediately approving the same law. This is nothing but rhetorical bullying. Dolan is merely saying that something with significant human value gets whited out when we say "no" to the whole idea of men & women and mothers & fathers.

  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 10:29 a.m.

    The Roman Catholic Church is in a quandary as the priesthood tends to support dictators, kings, authoritarian governments, socialism and would support communism if it were atheistic. In this case the Cardinal is saying Obamacare or socialized medicine is good if it were not for the contraceptive mandate. The head of the Communist party in the USA supports Obama care vigorously too because it is the predecessor to socialized medicine. In South Korean priests actually support much of what North Korea does. If there is a contrast between two systems certainly one can see it in Korea. Free market, free enterprise, capitalism, private property rights, lower taxes, less red tape are daily blasted by the left, but it is what has given us our prosperity. Obama continually fights it so we have a sluggish economy, but given the chance it would go great.

  • Pendergast Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 10:58 a.m.

    re: maclouie 8:38 a.m. Dec. 4

    Pascal's wager strikes again!

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Dec. 4, 2013 11:45 a.m.

    I would caution the Catholic Church about joining with the Obama administration like this. Once churches become little more than a propaganda arm for the government, they die a slow and painful death. Just look at the Catholic Church in Europe and South America. Yes lots of people consider themselves catholic, but they rarely attend and barely belive in the church itself. Take care of your own people first, use the Catholic Charity hospitals to care for the poor, and do so using the generosity of your members.

  • m.g. scott clearfield, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 1:12 p.m.

    Yesterday President Obama said that there would be no repeal of the ACA while he is President. I wonder if he realizes that that is only about 3 years away? Any future Congress and President could make any and all change necessary to the ACA, including scrapping the whole thing and starting over, which is probably the best idea. In any case, for this thing to work, the ACA will need to look a whole lot different in the coming years than it does now. In fact I suspect the term Obamacare will not even be relevent when future Presidents and Congresses begin to fix this mess. It may be called the ACA part 2, 3, or 4 ect. One thing is for sure, it had better become something less intrusive and costly than it seems to be now. Why did the Democrats have to mess with everyones health care when the purpose was supposedly to insure the 40 million uninsured in the first place? It was like taking a whole car apart in order to give it a tune-up. Bad idea and policy.

  • elarue NEW YORK, NY
    Dec. 4, 2013 3:17 p.m.

    DN shows its right wing bias by trying to use this as another validation to eliminate Obamacare. But what would really solve the Cardinal's concerns as well as the health care crisis in America would be Universal, Single Payer, Medicare for All. Or barring that, Medicare you can buy into, as proposed by Alan Grayson. That would put individuals' health care choices back to the individual (and their doctor) and leave the employer out of the equation altogether.

  • kargirl Sacramento, CA
    Dec. 4, 2013 5:34 p.m.

    Those who now advocate for Medicare For All--you are aware, are you not, that the President would have liked that, which is, after all, single-payer medical insurance? We know what ACA is, it is the perfect not being the enemy of the good. It is people who were not insured, some, never before in their lives, getting to doctors. Now, just because the ACA mandates contraceptive medications for women (which are also used for other purposes, such as chronic female reproductive system diseases) does not require those whose faith does not permit it to use them. The word choice means that one has the option of deciding whether or not to make use of a product or service. It affects her alone, and her religious life, which is not up to her friends, politicians, and certainly not total strangers. It is up to her doctors to advise her if she has medical conditions that can be impacted by pregnancy and childbirth. Again, it is not the business of those in politics, however they may feel, to decide for total strangers. Ask yourself--who do you want deciding YOUR medical care?

  • hermounts Pleasanton, CA
    Dec. 4, 2013 5:43 p.m.

    If the Catholic Church is for "universal" health care (which is really government health care) in principle, it seems to me they are making a fundamental category mistake, failing to distinguish between society and government. Society should care for the poor and needy, but that's not the same as saying government should. Catholics should be familiar with the concept of subsidiarity.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 7:28 p.m.

    Tyler D

    I have two major problems with your comment:

    1) The left bullies dissent in the hope that many people do not apply reason and logic in their desperate attempt to avoid being labeled a bigot, homophobe, etc; thereby encouraging the adoption left-wing dogma out of lazy thinking or spinelessness.

    I am homosexual but not myopic. Equating same-sex and opposite-sex marriage requires a suspension of reason and logic by the willfully blind. A cat is not a buffalo either. That does not make me a buffalophobe; it merely make accusers hypocritical

    2) The 1st Amendment specifically guarantees that the government may NOT interfere with the free exercise of religion. Government demanding the relinquishment of ones personal religious conviction for the sake of getting a business license or health insurance is an affront to religious liberty. Furthermore; any individual Catholic (or other) has the right to decide their level of devotion to their church doctrine - the government has NO right to do it for them. And you can buy your own birth control for a few bucks without the expecting local diocese to subsidize you. You are NOT a victim - you are the perpetrator.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 7:30 p.m.

    Ultra Bob


    "I have no quarrel with the Catholic Church in what they believe and teach but I oppose their efforts to force other people to believe as they do."



    Wow - that is so incredibly offensive. YOU are forcing Catholics to pay for your birth control. You can buy it yourself. You are NOT the victim. You are forcing your views onto others, then blaming the real victim when they resist. You are the perpetrator.



    GZE

    If a business is owned by Catholics (or Mormons or Jews etc.) you can expect it to have a Catholic conscience. To expect anyone to give up their conscience upon obtaining a business license is horrifying.

    And please don't give us the law is the law argument since there is a natural nexus between accounting/taxes and business, but businesses have operated thousand of years without providing abortofacients, because there is no nexus - except that you want it. Furthermore many adopted laws are struck down because they are simply unconstitutional (i.e. sitting at the back of the bus)

  • m.g. scott clearfield, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 12:44 p.m.

    bungalow

    150 million uninsured people due to pre-existing conditions??? I'm not calling you a liar, but that statistic is one I've never heard from Obama or any other source. And if that were the truth, I do believe Obama would have tried to sell his ACA on the basis of that particular problem rather than trying to sell it on the idea of 40 million uninsured. Even yesterday he made the claim that now the 40 million have insurance because of his program. As for the E/R and taxpayer, just who do you think is going to pay for Obamacare in the first place? The taxpayer. Yes Medi/Medi is taxpayer funded, but a lot of health care is privately funded by insurance companies. I hope you realize that if Obama and many Democrats had their way, all health care would be government funded. It's called "Single Payer". What I suggest, is both, private care for those that buy insurance. The ACA should leave them alone, which is what Obama said would happen, (he did lie,) and then of course a "safety net" for the indigent and needy. Pretty much like we had it before the ACA.

  • American Patriot Eagle Mountain, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 2:52 p.m.

    Furry1993...For starters I don't like Newt Gingrich and never have. I really don't like Hillary Clinton or her husband. Back in the 90s my family and I had a very nice insurance program that suited us just fine. I was opposed to many things I saw coming out of Washington, D.C. in the 90s.

    The problem WE have now is an out-of-control man in the WH forcing a program down everyone's throat. That, Furry1993, is NOT freedom of choice. That is tyranny.

    Now, because of this idiotic ACA millions of Americans have LOST - that is - LOST their perfectly good insurance coverage and every person I have talked to sees their premiums doubling like crazy. One would have to be blind not to see the damage this administration has caused this nation and that's just with the ACA.

    As I said earlier, the ACA is a train wreck happening and it's because we have the poorest leaders in this nation we have ever had - EVER. They are socialists and communists as I see it. As a veteran - I don't like socialists and communists because their ideologies are WRONG.

  • kargirl Sacramento, CA
    Dec. 5, 2013 3:20 p.m.

    m. g. scott, I hope you realize, a lot of bankruptcies and impoverished people have come from the privately insured folks who have gotten serious medical illnesses such as cancer or heart, kidney, or liver problems needing extensive, and expensive medical interventions, and these are not only elderly citizens, but those who were sure they had enough and more to live comfortably. I have read of couples at the point of considering the choice between selling all they owned, and liquidating assets to avoid bankruptcy and/or qualify for Medicaid, or file for divorce so that bankruptcy could be avoided and the ill partner could receive the treatments available. Neither should be necessary. This happens through the privately funded medical insurance sector, and ends up with more people depending on the public sector who never intended to be there, and the reason is obvious--the private sector is about profit, not wellness. If a person is sick, private companies have no use for your business.