Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

Mental Health

Monday, August 17th, 2009

Committee member, token lefty, debater, hat-wearer, writer and Sharpe-fan, Ben Slingo, dispels some myths surrounding the “Obamacare” fracas.slingo

American healthcare. Oh dear. It’s all rather unedifying, both the system and the squabble about how to make ever so slightly less dysfunctional. Certainly recent evidence suggests that US psychiatric units are shutting their doors to many hundreds of needy cases.

Enjoyable as it would be merely to revel in the hysteria, it might be useful to correct some widespread misconceptions. As ever, there are faults on both sides.

1. It is not true that the American poor are denied all healthcare. The Medicare programme does provide treatment. This treatment, however, is

 a) inferior to that provided by the NHS,

b) confined largely to emergency care, excluding say consultations about worrying symptoms,

c) funded in a hugely inefficient way and

d) destined to bankrupt the system that sustains it ominously soon.

2. It is not true that the American system classically liberal or free-market oriented. Treatment is funded by insurance companies, who are in turn paid mostly by employers, who in turn offer an often very limited choice of insurance packages to their employees. The commercial relationship between patient and hospital is infinitely more tenuous than that between,consumer and supermarket. Since employers provide insurance, many American workers are unwilling to endure the disruption entailed by switching jobs, a reluctance that limits a vital condition of the free market : labour flexibility. Not only this, but precisely because the American system is privately operated many states have imposed very restrictive and expensive regulations on insurance companies and hospitals.

3. It is not true that simply because several doctors and nurses were very courteous to your ailing grandmother the NHS is a healthcare system of unrivalled quality that deserves its own religious cult (which should perhaps forthwith be declared blessed)

4. It is not true that ‘Obamacare’ would impose an NHS-style system in the States. First of all ‘Obamacare’ itself is a fanciful notion as the President has (unwisely) entrusted the plan to the Democrats in Congress. Something vaguely resembling American NHS may appeal to Mr. Obama and other liberal Democrats, but they are not reckless enough to propose it given its
likely reception.

5. It is not true that ‘Obamacare’ would sanction state-funded abortions (though I would imagine that some insurance premia
are already inflated by the cost of abortion). One might also note that tax revenue is most certainly spent on enforcing the death penalty, something equally repugnant to the Holy Apostolic Church.

6. It is not true that the very large discrepancy between levels of health spending in America (16 per cent of GDP) and western Europe (10-12 per cent) is entirely squandered. The very best American care is truly superb and surpasses that available on
the NHS. This care would not necessarily be threatened by ‘Obamacare’, though a government-backed insurance company would damage some of its private competitors.

7. It is not true that ‘Obamacare’ envisages death panels that would exterminate the Palin family. I decline to speculate on
whether this myth has been peddled by pro- or anti-Obama partisans.

-Ben Slingo

U.S. Bishops must NOT back Obama

Sunday, August 16th, 2009

http://www.thetablet.co.uk/article/13499

In today’s issue of The Tablet (the international Catholic weekly Founded 1840 – Britain’s oldest journal bar The Spectator), that publication’s characteristically hysterical Obamamania has been taken beyond all moral acceptability, orthodoxy, or any pretence of Catholic sensibility. This time its about healthcare, or “Obamacare”. I shall elucidate.

On political issues the Catholic Church has always been a bit split; prior to the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) the Church mainly focused on critiquing liberalism, secularism, “Modernism” (a sceptical and anti-authoritarian outlook), socialism, Communism, in the 19th Century democracy itself, sexual liberalism, divorce and all the traditional thorny medical ethical issues – abortion, euthanasia, artificial contraception, etc. However, since Vatican II there has been an increasing focus on social issues, including “social justice”, workers’ rights, the evils of excessive capitalism, and re-focusing economics in such a manner that the human being is seen as the end rather than merely the means of economic activity. Laudable moral intentions, for sure, but often displaying a lack of awareness of how economics really works. How do we MAKE people care about each other? The answer to this is pretty unclear, other than everyone becoming Christians and being charitable towards one another voluntarily.

However, The Tablet chooses to interpret these moral imperatives solely according to a narrow, statist understanding. This is certainly a long way from Pius IX’s 1846 pronouncement that socialism is “a pest”, and reflects an uninformed and naive outlook. Having championed Obama during his election campaign, the (highly unorthodox) editorial of The Tablet  has proudly asserted from on high that “U.S. Bishops must back Obama.” The argument presented is dangerous and wrong – that the Church in America ought to shelve its problems with state-sanctioned abortion (in the Church’s view mass state infanticide) and all the other areas where monolithic healthcare systems, such as the NHS, trample over traditioanl Christian moral values, in order to pursue the “general principle of the common good”. In contrast to this “common good” of public healthcare, the issue of abortion is passed off as a “specifically Catholic issue”, and the editor attacks the Bishops for failing to “put the promotion of social justice above their churchly priorities.” Sorry, one issue, that of the moral imperative to heal the sick, cannot be so warmly lauded as “social justice” while an equally important imperative – not to kill the unborn – is given the mere rhetorical status of “their own churchly priorities”. This is unfair, un-Catholic, cheap and incredibly one-sided, and a Catholic publication ought to know better.

Furthermore, The Tablet presents the Obamacare issue as solely one of a distinction between people either having healthcare or not – it’s either given to them graciously from Their Lord Barack or denied them by greedy capitalists, apparently the “robber barons” of our age. The subtleties of the difficulties of state funding, the inefficiencies and abuses generated by a universal “free-at-the-point-of-use” principle, as weighed against the evil of people not having healthcare, are dealt with using one sweeping, blunt conclusion: the state must provide universal care, so saith the Lord, and the Bishops are obligated to pressure for this. All else, even the rights of the unborn, are secondary.

Even if one accepts that Church teaching on imperatives to heal the sick must translate directly into state-run healthcare (a highly contentious assumption), one must surely accept that this is less clear and more tenuous than Church teaching on abortion, which is thoroughly clear-cut. What’s more, the Church must fight the battle of attitudes: we in the West generally do not see any intrinsic evils in state healthcare, but are morally apathetic about abortion – the Bishops must draw a line in the sand and defend it, because once Obamacare is accepted in principle it is only a small step further to sanction state-funded abortion en masse. Even if you personally agree with abortion, or believe in the right to decide for oneself whether it is acceptable, then surely on the latter principle one must oppose the confiscation of taxpayers’ money to spend by the state on abortion “services” against the will of many of the taxpayers? Opposition to abortion in the US is widespread and many will be outraged to see their money spent in this way. The Bishops are entirely right to focus on this issue and the need to keep abortion out of the state system. This is not a “mistake” and The Tablet, if it makes any claim to retain the name of a Catholic weekly, ought to be ashamed of itself.

Obama

Tuesday, January 20th, 2009

Barack Obama is President of the United States. In some ways this is a good thing. The Republicans are certainly not much better, having doubled the national debt in less than a decade and trampled civil liberty. But let’s look at what’s bad about Obama.

He’s no friend of free trade. Despite much prevarication on this and other issues during his campaign (such as corporate campaign donations), Obama’s instincts are protectionist. He wants to “protect” American jobs at the expense of American consumers, for example by “renegotiating” NAFTA, even though this will make most Americans poorer, and he opposes free trade deals with countries like Colombia. Obama told voters in New Hampshire: “I would stop the import of all toys from China”. 80% of toys sold in the US are made in China.

He supports the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which allows the US government to spy on its own citizens.

He supports the “Fairness Doctrine”, which would allow people to force private broadcasters to provide airtime to opposing views.

He wants to legislate to make it easier for union bosses to control their members, for example by abolishing the right to secret ballots, through his chilling “Employee Free Choice Act”.

Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both cut capital gains tax, and both times, revenue from the tax increased. In the 1980s the tax was raised and revenues decreased. Obama is morally vacuous enough to want to raise capital gains tax “for purposes of fairness” even if it would reduce revenue and would affect 100 million Americans who own shares. Obama’s other tax changes will increase marginal tax rates on low-income earners by 13% or more, because he doesn’t understand the poverty trap. This might be deliberate, to increase dependence of the poor on the state, swelling the numbers of Obama voters. He also plans a huge expansion in the public sector payroll, which will create a client state of Obama voters. By the 2012 election, currently illegal immigrants will be legal, and able to vote Obama.

Obama’s love of “fairness” means he appears to have virtually no regard for the rule of law. The recent bank bailout, which Obama supported, is a massive scheme to redistribute wealth from the prudent and responsible to the imprudent and irresponsible. It makes a mockery of his desire to “spread the wealth”. It is, of course, unconstitutional.

A survey of Obama supporters found that only 29% believe that judges should rule on what is in the Constitution, whereas 82% of McCain supporters said they should. 11% of McCain supporters said judges should rule based on their sense of fairness, but 49% of Obama supporters thought they should. This is also called “judging a case on its merits”, or ad hoc justice, and is utterly contrary to the rule of law.

Obama appears to agree. He said: “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.” [My emphasis.] And I thought justice was supposed to be blind, and judges were supposed to uphold the law, not empathy.

He has a consistent record of opposing private gun ownership, despite the clear statement in the constitution that this right “shall not be infringed.” If he is really against the Second Amendment, why doesn’t he try to abolish it? Why has he opposed guns through unconstitutional measures, rather than trying to change the constitution? Does he consider the constitution “just words?”

In a 2001 interview, he said that one of the problems with the Supreme Court was that it has “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society… It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution.”

We have a man leading the free world who does not value freedom.