Sen. Nelson says he’s waiting to hear how Nebraska groups will react to the health care compromise. Well, looks like he won’t have to wait much longer.
In a great OpEd in the the Omaha World-Herald Father Bert Thelen, Rev. Jane Florence and Rev. David Lux call on Nelson to support “systematic change” in our healthcare system. Representative quote:
We turn to U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson, knowing he stands with us as a person of faith. As governor, he left a lasting and important legacy of strong public insurance programs such as Kids Connection and CHIP, which provides insurance to thousands of Nebraskans who would otherwise join the uninsured.
Now we turn to him again to leave another legacy: health care for all Nebraskans. If we can fix the broken health care system, we can ensure that Nelson’s legacy in Nebraska is continued with his vote this year to pass health reform.
This comes hot on the heels of the Catholic Health Association’s recent praise of Sen. Casey’s abortion compromise. The CHA represents 20 hospitals in Nebraska.
You can read the entire clergy OpEd here. Here’s hoping Sen. Nelson does.
add a comment »
Health care reform is at a tipping point. With tens of thousands of lives at stake, it’s important to get the facts straight — particularly when it comes to abortion, the issue that looks to be key to securing Senator Nelson’s vote.
So it’s more than unfortunate that the Family Research Council has inaccurately described Senator Casey’s compromise language on abortion. In today’s Washington Update FRC calls on Nelson to reject the compromise saying that, “instead of an outright ban, the Casey plan would shuffle money around-but still pay for the procedure out of a taxpayer pool.” (Emphasis added.)
This is false. Casey’s proposal explicitly stipulates that no federal funds may pay for abortions — and not even private premium dollars from individuals who opt out of abortion coverage can be used to fund abortions.
This is the same principle which allows government money to pay for books and desks at Catholic schools, but not religious education. And it is a principle strong enough to earn the praise of the Catholic Health Association.
FRC’s slippery “taxpayer pool” language is dishonest, at best, and does a disservice to this crucial debate.
add a comment »
As 2009 draws to a close, the Religion Newswriters Association took a moment to look back and vote on what they thought were the top religion stories of the year. President Obama’s landmark speech in Cairo was #1 on the list. Second on the list was the role of faith groups in the health care debate. From the results:
2. Health-care reform, the No. 1 topic in Congress for most of the year, involves faith-based groups appealing strongly for action to help “the least of these,” and others, such as the Roman Catholic bishops, for restrictions on abortion funding.
We’ve spent much of 2009 working to lift up the voices a wide swath of faith groups and leaders dedicated to making quality healthcare affordable for all American families; I’m glad the media took note!
add a comment »
Yesterday it was impossible not to notice that Joe Lieberman’s renewed threat to filibuster healthcare reform made him the center of attention across the blogosphere. (My favorite commentary on the topic was Ezra Klein’s post arguing that we do ourselves a disservice by tiptoeing around the life-and-death consequences of a filibuster of the reform bill.) Today, David Gibson added a religious angle to the conversation at Politics Daily. In addition to recounting Jewish leaders’ efforts to dissuade Lieberman from blocking healthcare reform, Gibson draws on Nathan Guttman, Mark Silk, Jon Chait and Lieberman’s autobiography, concluding:
In the end, it’s unclear exactly what influence Lieberman’s Judaism, or his fellow Jews, could have on his political decisions. These days, arguments over the good or bad faith in a pol’s position are often associated with Roman Catholicism. But Judaism has no eucharist to withhold, no effective way to excommunicate an adherent, no real hierarchy to lay down the law — and no widespread desire to implement any of those mechanisms. In fact, a hallmark of Judaism is disputation, so in a sense the arguments between Lieberman and his critics are only cementing their claims to being members of the tribe. Whether those debates seal the fate of health care reform will ultimately be decided on the floor of the Congress.
For a convincing counterpoint to Lieberman’s signaled willingness to kill reform, have a look at David Saperstein’s remarks at the Capitol today.
add a comment »
In a tally that foreshadows significant challenges ahead for healthcare reform, the Senate mustered 60 votes to avert a filibuster of letting the debate begin. The accompanying warnings from Sens. Lincoln, Lieberman and Nelson that they’d join a filibuster of any bill with a public option will necessarily make that the focal point of negotiation and commentary, but as I’ve noted before, affordability standards are a matter of no small consequence to people of faith.
On this issue, the Senate bill falls shy of the House bill’s provisions for low-income families, and in two of the bottom three income brackets provides lower subsidies than even the Senate Finance Committee’s bill. Amidst more high profile issues, let’s hope the Senate keeps in mind the very basic principle that if we’re going to require people to buy insurance, we must make sure that they can afford it.
add a comment »