Tuesday, July 3, 2012

The Healthcare Mandate: Liberty, Rights, Justice, and Morality




It has been a number of days since the Supreme Court ruled to uphold the HealthCare Mandate.  Many were surprised by the outcome, especially in Chief Justice John Roberts’ decision to uphold the mandate and also being the swing vote in what caught many by surprise.  Many assumed that Chief Justice Roberts being one of the conservatives, appointed by a Republican president, would not uphold the mandate. 
Chief Justice Roberts reasoning was that the mandate was a tax and that the Federal Government has the right to tax.  I am not a constitutional lawyer or an expert in the health care field.  I trust there are many more able individuals than I who can offer their expertise and rebuttals against those Justices who upheld the mandate and to comment on whether or not the mandate is beneficial or harmful, in regards to its political framework.

I never thought once that the Church was against the mandate in regards to there being some type of benefit for all, especially the poor.  All can agree, something needs to be done with the health care system in the United States.  It is not the position of a cleric to denounce or advocate political positions, though sometimes we all do (even us priests), there is no helping it, we are political animals, all of us have it in our very blood.  Anyway, the Church leaves the political nature of a bill, mandate, law, to the body politic, i.e. law makers and those they represent.  The Church advocates or denounces law only when it violates natural human rights, is harmful, or keeps the poor down trodden.  The Church’s concern and objection to the Health Care Mandate rested in the Mandates’ definition of Church.  It understands Church only as the worship building, viz. the building with the Cross and Steeple.  Hence, all the employees within the “Church” will be exempt from carrying healthcare that provides for abortion and contraceptive use.

The problem now rests in the dilemma we have with other Catholic institutions that do not fit this very narrow definition of Church, e.g. Catholic Universities, such as The Catholic University of America, Notre Dame, St. Jospeh’s, etc. as well as all Catholic Hospitals.  All of these employees will carry insurance that pays for contraceptive use and the coverage for abortions.  The Catholic Church cannot accept this since our very definition of Church extends to all our institutions, i.e. there are chapels in these hospitals and universities, they also have priests and religious who staff them, they live out a particular charism either that of the Universal Church or the religious community to which they are affiliated and or founded by.

Granted if the mandate would have been banned then the argument or point is moot.  I am sure that is what many in the Church hoped for.  There are also “civil liberty issues” at stake, because from some folks point of view they ask the following questions, i.e. why can’t I buy the insurance I want, if I own an insurance company why can’t I offer the insurance I want, are we not a capitalist society where we allow for free markets and competition between sellers/owners/consumers?  The Supreme Court did not think so and has upheld the mandate as a tax issue.  

What does this mean for Catholics in the United States?  Well, the issue is not over, a new administration may repeal it if successful.  However, if people in Washington will repeal it then they have to offer an alternative, for as I said before, something needs to be done with our health care and President Obama was right in putting the wheels in motion towards that end, though I disagree with him in the definition of Church and his personal opinion regarding abortion and marriage.  The other option is that the current law suits by the Church's institutions against this administration gain victory, on the grounds that the administration’s definition of Church is faulty, then no Catholic institution will be required to offer benefits that have abortion and contraceptives paid for by the insurance companies.  That will be a victory.  Though I personally believe and hope that no insurance company will pay for abortions or contraceptives since the use of such means are immoral.

In regards to the “civil liberties” questions concerning the mandate and the nature of politics, e.g. is the thing capitalist or socialist by nature I leave to you to reflect on.  The job of the priest is to speak on the moral nature of the subject.  If the law is unjust, as in this case it is on the following grounds, it offers to pay for the destruction of human life and it pays for the un-natural participation with contraceptives.  The law “COULD” also be unjust if it disproportionately taxes its citizens.   Though one must understand that if “we” do something so that every American is covered then we all have to chip in, the question and challenge is how do we do that without raising our taxes too high and still provide people with decent insurance?  That’s why we have smart democrats, republicans, and independents whom we have put in office, most of whom went to Ivy League Schools, are well off themselves, have many successful business friends, if they only put their minds to it without worrying about being reelected then just maybe they might actually get it right!  AMEN!

Picture is from the movie “A Man For All Seasons”, the scene is that of King Henry VIII pressuring St. Thomas More to accept Henry’s divorce from Catherine of Spain and to marry Ann Boleyn, as well as revealing beginning hints of Henry taking on the Supremacy of the Church in England.  As you know, More did not budge on grounds of conscience in both matters, something all of our politicians need to reflect on when making decisions, for they are the King’s good servant, but God’s First.
FJ

No comments:

Post a Comment