Bishops Seek Universal Health Care: Confusion Between having Access to Health Care and having Health Insurance?

Sr. Mary Ann Walsh has written an article called, Bishops Seek Truly Universal Health Care where she states that the Bishops want universal health care that protects the weakest individuals such as the unborn and protects the consciences of the religious.  

But, Sr. Walsh goes on to say: 

"Whatever one feels about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the fact is that tens of thousands of Americans are without health care insurance. This creates a health-care crisis for the nation."  Does Sr. Walsh believe that having health insurance equals having automatic access to good, affordable health care?  

Then she states "This nation needs universal health care".  

I agree that everyone should have access to health care but does government run health care really work?  Has government run health care been shown to protect the rights of of both patients and the consciences of religious or has it been proven to the contrary, that it violates those rights?  While the health care system in the United States has some flaws it has a proven medicinal success rate above all other countries.  Other countries which have government run health care may have an increased amount of quantitative care for everyday doctor checkup visits but they don't have quality or quantity health care when a problem occurs - when health care really counts - when a patient is diagnosed with a serious illness.  The government does a cost benefit analysis and determines whether that individual is worth the money it would cost to treat the illness.  Does this constitute truly universal health care according to Sr. Walsh and the Bishops?  I would hope not.  Plus, who in this country is not allowed access to an emergency room?  If the hospital refused to take a person who has no health insurance that hospital could be sued.  But, I do agree that some in poor communities have difficulty in getting to hospitals.  But, it is misleading to imply that hospitals wouldn't accept any person with a legitimate health concern who walked through the emergency room doors.  

Sr. Walsh stated:

"For one thing, the bishops found that the bill did not protect the life of the unborn child. The bishops' concern was borne out afterward as some states sought to use newly-available health care funds for elective abortions. After some cried "foul," the Secretary for Health and Human Services advised these states that such funding was not permitted. Any cleaning up of the bill now ought to guarantee that funds for health care should not be used for elective abortions. 

"Another concern of the bishops is protection of the conscience rights of institutions. Most people understand the need to respect the conscience of an individual, a conscience correctly formed through education and prayer. An institution also has conscience rights, including the right to follow the teachings of its sponsoring organization. No religious organizations should be forced to purchase coverage for procedures it does not approve of, such as contraception and sterilization. No government should force an institution to practice medicine or purchase medical services that run contrary to its basic tenets. Not just the institution but a pluralistic America would suffer if such a right were denied."

I am in full agreement with Sr. Walsh and the bishops on abortion and protecting the conscience rights of both institutions and individuals. 

"The bishops also seek to protect access to health care for immigrants."  

This depends on whether the bishops are referring to legal immigrants or both legal and illegal immigrants.  If it is the former I am fully supportive but if it is the latter I am appalled that our bishops would try to make the United States a land without borders and lawless.  

Catholic Culture Clash 8-26-10

I just happened to be talking about civility when debating politics, sociology, and theology on blogs when I came across this article on civility in public discourse (or lack thereof) at our educational institutions.

Patrick Lee and Robert P. George set the record straight as to when fertilization begins for those who are confused as to when fertilization actually begins.

Here are 15 reasons to use Natural family Planning.

It is pointed out here that some on the Left have even ceded that Obamacare won't reduce health care costs.

Bishop Ochoa seems to rebuke an Orthodox priest who espoused Church teaching on homosexuality, homosexual acts. This Orthodox priest basically told his community of El Paso like it is with regards to Church teaching on homosexuality, in a straightforward manner and didn't pull any punches.

When Obama rebuked and called out the Supreme Court Justices at the State of the Union Address and I was appalled at how publicly he did this. Nothing of this kind has been done during prior SOTU addresses in our past.  It was highly inappropriate and low-class of him to do so like he did.  Was Obama saying that all types of groups have no right to freely speak on political matters and/or contribute to political campaigns?  Aren't groups madeup essentially of many individuals gathering for a sole or primary purpose?  So, what's the beef with individuals coming together to support and donate money to a politician or a political group?  If Obama really is against ALL GROUPS funding political campaigns why isn't he calling out the unions?  Is he only against those groups who fund political campaigns on the Right or for Republicans? 
Here is an article revealing how the unions are outspending corporations 3 to 1.

The Vatican has earmarked more euros in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

Elderly Woman funds abortions for others-murders of innocents. How sickening. This is appalling.  She said its 'all about the child'.  It is so immoral, unethical, against God and backwards thinking for this woman to think that murdering an unborn child is 'all about the child, helping the child, and calls abortion 'a blessing'. This is just so wrong on so many levels.