Health-Care Factions

You are correct that we cannot achieve a good health-care system without the proper goal/vision (“Benedict on Health Care,” Aug. 9). I think many have long forgotten that the modern health-care system started with Christ’s command to “heal the sick” by dedicated religious who invented hospitals.

However, look at the caliber of people President Obama has brought into his Cabinet, staff and czars — don’t think there is one who would represent a Judeo-Christian philosophy, beginning with the respect for life. If you read the review by the Liberty Counsel of House Bill 3200, it is terrifying. It is also contrary to what the president is saying.

So call your congressional representatives and tell them what you want, but don’t for a minute think they are looking out for us, the people.

In general, there seem to be two factions. One group wants universal health-care at all costs; the other wants to conserve the current health-care system with reforms to address things like affordability, portability, pooling across state lines for small businesses to get better rates, and definitely not have a government person interjecting the government into our health-care decisions.

There is a problem with marathon compromise sessions — they tend to so concentrate on a compromise that they lose sight of the original goal: good health care.

          Al Wunsch

          The Villages, Florida

Who Is ‘in Need’?

Regarding “Health-Care Battle Is Shaping Up” (Aug. 23):

President Obama wants us to believe his health-care plan will help those in need. What does this mean?

The government health-care plan will mandate that taxpayer money be used to pay for the killing of children as women choose not to reproduce (i.e., abortion). To this day, Obama [plays politics with the question of whether or not] abortion would be funded in his health-care plan. Unless you want to pay for abortions, you need to let your voices be heard.

Obama would rather pay doctors to abort more people and pay less for Medicare services to ensure seniors die sooner. This great plan for the future should last a few generations.

          Laura Jones

          Yorba Linda, California

Beware Abortion Expansion

Regarding “Pope to President: Promote Life” (July 26):

A good place to start would be with the pending health-care legislation. Health care is supposed to heal the patient, not kill the patient. But the legislation being supported by President Obama would promote the killing of our youngest patients — unborn children — through abortion.

Even worse, you and I could be forced to pay for the killing of these innocent babies with our tax dollars.

Pending bills in Congress could also result in private businesses and organizations being forced to pay for abortions through government mandates stating that abortion be covered in health-insurance plans.

Because of this, the president’s “health-care reform” could lead to the largest expansion of abortion in our country since the tragic 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, according to National Right to Life (NRLC.org).

The U.S. bishops have stressed that reform legislation should not promote abortion. “No health-care reform plan should compel us or others to pay for the destruction of human life, whether through government funding or mandatory coverage of abortion,” stated Bishop William Murphy, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development.

Any health-care reform legislation should specifically exclude abortion from coverage. Let’s support health care that heals, not kills.

          Rita Kelly

          Corpus Christi, Texas

Born-Alive Bill Killer

Regarding “Does Obama Really Want Less Abortion?” (July 26):

They talk about preventative health care. Eat the right foods, exercise, etc. How about the government mandating genetic testing to determine if the unborn baby is healthy? Remember, there is built into this plan a panel that looks at quality of life vs. cost.

We already test for Down syndrome and other defects — and doctors often recommend abortion. The government plan will cover the cost of abortion. That is currently in all of the Democrats’ plans.

Suppose the government just eliminates coverage for various genetic diseases. Don’t force anyone to have an abortion; just make it the logical economic choice. Look at the cost savings. Eventually, they could dramatically reduce or eliminate the need for neonatal care and also subsequent special education in schools.

Sounds unthinkable? Those in charge are the same people who have no problem with late-term abortions when the baby is fully formed. No big deal?

We used to have the inalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, and we have already lost the right to life. Pro-life people had to get a law passed that said you have the right to life if you are born alive. It’s called the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. And guess who voted against it in Illinois as a state senator? Barack Obama.

          Charles Venus

          Liverpool, New York

Bush the Lifesaver

Thank you for the beautiful commentary about President George Bush by Paul Kengor (“Bush Quietly Saved a Million African Lives,” Aug. 9). It was good news amidst all the very bad news.

I am truly disappointed it had to be on page 7, when it should have been on page one. We have heard so much from Mr. Obama about the health-care initiative — none of it good news. Yet Mr. Kengor explains how this was news that never made it to the headlines of any news sources when it occurred — so now why on page 7 of your paper? Shouldn’t we give credit where credit is due?

          Sister Mary Marcella, SCL

          Topeka, Kansas

Cool Toward Warming

My many thanks to the Register and reporter Wayne Laugesen regarding the issue of global warming (“Global Warming: Is It for Real?” Aug. 9). Having a B.S. in geological science and a M.S. in geophysics, and as the CEO of a national environmental-consulting firm, I have long been a skeptic on this issue.

I applaud the Register for printing this article. I encourage anyone who has an interest in this issue to visit the Heartland Institute website (Heartland.org). They are doing very good work debunking this theory.

I am also becoming more encouraged as the tide seems to be turning — more and more scientists who have long been skeptical of global warming’s relationship to man’s activities seem willing to speak out.

The truth will come out eventually, but what damage will be done to our economy and our standard of living in the meantime?

As a final note, this debate once again convinces me that our God has a true sense of humor.

I cannot tell you how many global-warming conferences and congressional hearings have been canceled over the years as a result of blizzards in Washington. Look it up; it cannot be a coincidence.

          Earl H. Scott

          President and CEO

          Earth Consulting Group, Inc.

          Marietta, Georgia

Depression and Catholics

I don’t usually write about anything I read, but the post on depression, “America’s Depressing Reality” (Daily Blog, Aug. 5), just made me have to express my point of view.

I am a practicing Catholic, my prayer life is very healthy, I go to confession at least once a month, have two hours of adoration a week, and am an excellent sub for it also.

Hard work is an old friend. Sometimes depression just isn’t cured by what your article stated! If it is caused by an imbalance in the brain, then hard work, prayer, etc., aren’t going to make it go away. To be truthful, I am offended when I keep reading this rule of thumb, so to speak. There were saints who had depression. 

As you can guess, I have been treated for depression for quite some time, and sometimes it is all the things mentioned, plus medicine that helps the person.

I do not like to be made to think I am a slacker and taking medicines for no reason. I think this article is very unfair and hurtful!

          Ann Vescio

          Pendleton, Oregon 

Editor’s note: Many good Catholics take antidepressants. That is why we included this sentence in the Register article that this blog post linked to, “Get Thee Behind Me, Depression”: “Of course, anyone suffering from a clinically diagnosed condition should seek the advice of a credentialed professional before making any changes in medication or therapy.”

Unfair Smear?

The tag “ObamaCare” is a partisan term that is most often used to smear the Democrats’ health-care reform efforts and has no place in well-reasoned argument (“ObamaCare and the Right to Life,” Aug. 9).

While I agree that there is a need for language continuing the prohibitions on funding abortion, the tone of your recent articles all seem aimed at ensuring that readers believe this cannot be accomplished and that reform must be stopped. This lacks the truth component of Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth). Shame!

          Dee Pierson

          Charleston, South Carolina