Catholic Reaganites for Obama?

I’m a pro-life Catholic liberal (a rare beast, I know). I totally want abortion to be available only in life-threatening situations. I used to vote Republican over the pro-life issue, but no longer, and here’s why.

For 28 years the Republican party has been promising great things to the pro-life movement, but delivering only purely symbolic victories like the ban on partial birth abortion (which didn’t save a single life). As this happened year after year, I became convinced that this was not an accident- that the Republican party had no intention of ever delivering anything of substance.

The Republican party is a coalition of economic conservatives who want to eliminate spending on social services, and social conservatives who want fewer abortions and less tolerance for gays. The Grover Norquist types have every reason to want abortion to be available- the highest abortion rates are among the poor, and every poor child aborted is a poor child on whom no tax money will be spent. The suburban soccer moms want abortion to be available if their teenage daughter becomes pregnant. The pro-life wing of the Republican party is being played for suckers. (I was delighted to see Huckabee make this point in the primaries.)

That being so, I think the best way to have the fewest abortions is for low income women to have access to subsidized contraceptives and subsidized child care- so they can support the children that they have. The Republican party has drastically cut government help in both areas.

That’s why I’m voting for Obama.

For 28 years the Republican party has been promising great things to the pro-life movement, but delivering only purely symbolic victories like the ban on partial birth abortion (which didn’t save a single life). As this happened year after year, I became convinced that this was not an accident- that the Republican party had no intention of ever delivering anything of substance.

This argument is regularly retailed in the comboxes, and it is either dishonest or grossly uninformed.

No one has ever claimed that the Republican Party consisted entirely of pro-lifers. But the reasons the Party hasn't delivered on that issue is because (i) the courts seized control of it and permit no significant restrictions, and (ii) Democrats politicized the judicial nomination process out of an almost fanatical determination to prevent undoing of Roe v. Wade.

To draw from that the conclusion that we should elect a hard core pro-abortion President is strange logic indeed.

And, BTW, you are the first committed pro-lifer I have ever encountered who believed that subsidized contraceptives were the solution to abortion, or was angry that the GOP had "drastically cut" funding for such things.

I think the emphasis on lives saved is interesting. Thought exercise:

Would there be more abortions in America over the next ten years if Obama is elected president over McCain this year, or less? Why?

I'll have to think about my own response, but I'm having a hard time imagining a convincing argument that electing McCain will mean fewer abortions.

Bless,
Doug

In conservative legal circles, Kmiec is known as a notorious boot-licker, smarter than 95% of other attorneys, but always second fiddle to either the 5% who are smarter than him or the DOJ office-holders who speed-dial him for a press release for scholarly top cover--witness his support for Aunt Harriet.

I'd say he is basically the legal variant of Deal Hudson: a guy who forever claims to have some special insight into "the Catholic vote", but basically a crank who speaks only for himself, who, by delivering jack squat, regularly disappoints those politicians who foolishly rely on him.

And Kmiec focuses on a Catholics social teaching, which involves more than abortion. The Reagan seduction of white-ethnic Catholics represented the gutting of Catholic social teaching as a guiding principal and somehow, for the last 28 years, Catholic social teaching got translated into "abortion, and only abortion." Thus, pro-life Republicans who had policies hostile to Catholic social teaching on poverty, unjust war, human dignity, and race won the votes of Catholics who fell under Reagan's--and the GOP's--spell.

Obama offers an alternative to that. As Kmeic says, Obama offers an envirnoment where CST-inspired conversation can take place, including on abortion.

Let me see a 2008 Democrat openly welcome practicing Catholics and respect [WITH policy and PARTY PLATFORMS] their positions on human rights and human life.

Don't think it'll happen.

But if it did they'd have my vote.

Catholic social teaching got translated into "abortion, and only abortion." Thus, pro-life Republicans who had policies hostile to Catholic social teaching on poverty, unjust war, human dignity, and race won the votes of Catholics who fell under Reagan's--and the GOP's--spell.

Wrong.

The GOP does NOT advocate poverty, unjust war, diminution of human dignity or racism, and in fact opposed all of those things. Your personal interpretation of the likely results of policies advocated by many Republicans is that they will produce those bad things. But those are prudential judgments, not Church teaching.

The abortion issue, however, is cut and dried from a Catholic perspective: Any system of laws that permits and encourages it is fundamentally unjust, regardless of how many government anti-poverty programs it includes.

But Sheilagh, the GOP offers platforms that support torture, hostility towards immigrants, unjust war, the furthering of poverty, racial intolerance. So how can you blindly vote for Republicans whose policies are so offensive to Catholic social teaching?

See my post above. Where have you heard Republican candidates advocate torture, hostility toward immigrants, unjust war, furthering of poverty and racial intolerance?

You have decided that certain interrogation practices supported by the Bush Administration amount to torture. I happen to agree, and so does John McCain. But the Bushies insist they are NOT supporting "torture." It's a prudential question.

No one -- publicly or privately -- advocates "unjust" war, "furthering of poverty," "racial intolerance" or "hostility toward immigrants." The fact that you personally are convinced that Republican policies lead to such things does not entitle you to equate your opinions with "Catholic social teaching."

I personally think it is ridiculous to only vote based on the candidates (usually flip flopping for votes anyway) view of abortion & NOT to take everything else in to account. Pro-lifers will say that their money is going to pay for abortion which can be true; however, it is also true that I am paying for a "war on terror" which I do not want to pay for either. I want a candidate that overall reflects my view on how I want our country to be run.

Let's face it folks we've had way more Republicans in office the last 30-40 years & our taxes are still climbing and everything the candidates have promised has not happened either. I want a president with a positive attitude & that can work with both parties to get some of the much needed things done. Of course, this probably will never happen regardless of who we elect:(

Simon:

On the torture question, certainly McCain needs to speak to his vote yesterday against declaring waterboarding torture.

On the broader question, rhetorically the Republicans are no more "pro-torture" than Obama is "pro-abortion." In evaluating both McCain and Obama, traditional Christians need to examine more than just rhetoric and policy prescriptions (both are important, but rhetoric alone has little value and candidate policy prescriptions are unlikely to survive Congress intact). They need to consider their overall sense of how American government and society will function under each man, and of how each man will approach expected challenges and respond to unexpected events, and then decide which person's presidency will more likely coincide with the callings of Christian social teaching.

Bless,
Doug

"they both want the typical liberal Democrat agenda, including massive growth of the federal government."

That's a conservative argument, not a Catholic one. Being a political conservative and being Catholic are not synonymous. The Scriptures did not have a position on McCain/Feingold.

"takeover of the health care industry to gun control and so on"

Again, there is nothing Catholic about having an insufficient health care that is almost morally unequal. In addition, there is nothing Catholic about violence and the necessity for guns. Again, you've confused being a political conservative with being Catholic.

This confusion--the Reagan delusion--is what has lead us to view Catholic social teaching as beginning and ending with abortion. It's time for Catholics to look at the broader perspective and ask serious questions about how they've become accomplices to political positions that are incompatible with being a Catholic.

As I understand official church teaching, there are five non-negotiable issues on which no one should ever compromise.

1. We should never support abortion under any circumstances. It's always evil. As I understand official church teaching, having an abortion might be OK if the mother's life is in danger. However, that's pretty rare these days.

2. We should never support yuthinasia.

3. We should never support human cloning.

4. We should never support embryonic stem cell research.

5. Finally, we should never support same-sex marriage.

I got these from Catholic Answers and their sister organization called Catholic Answers Action. I got these from their voter guide. Most of you probably know about Catholic Answers and you know that they always preach and promote official church teachings.

In short, in order to be an "orthodox Roman Catholic" (loyal, faithful and obedient) those five non-negotiable issues are the most important. The church allows room for disagreement about the death penalty, just war and issues related to poverty but the Church demands total obedience when it comes to those five issues. By the way, the Church still opposes artificial contraception and supports Natural Family Planning. Studies prove that Natural Family Planning works very well.

As imperfect as the Republican party and John McCain are, I have to vote for the candidate and the party that at least claims to be pro-life. Fr. Frank Pavone and other Orthodox Catholics have quoted official church teaching that states that abortion is the central issue. It's more important than any other issue. If that's what the Church teaches officially, then those of us who claim to be Catholic must obey.

Again, there is nothing Catholic about having an insufficient health care that is almost morally unequal.

Neither is there anything "Catholic" about universal or government-provided health care. Christ Himself didn't speak about such things, and in the 19 centuries immediately following His death and resurrection, it never occurred to Catholics or any other Christians to advocate them either.

Catholic social teaching does not address what levels -- if any -- of government spending on health care are appropriate. You cannot use your prudential judgment that those levels ought to be high to "balance out" the fact that the candidates advocating such high spending levels also advocate an unfettered license to kill innocent children in their mothers' wombs.

"Would there be more abortions in America over the next ten years if Obama is elected president over McCain this year, or less? Why?"

As I recall, when Bill Clinton took office, something like four of his first five executive orders had to do with increased access to abortion. Things like funding travel expenses for military women who wanted an abortion, because most military doctors wouldn't do them, so it could mean travelling back to the States. I assume Bush II cancelled those, so yes, having Obama take office and switch those back to the Democrat version could mean more abortions. Of course, McCain might do the same thing, but it's not as certain as with a Democrat.

To heck with all of them. After reading more about McCain (I really don't see how anyone can give him an 85% conservative rating--he even got an F from Gun Owners of America!), and watching the Obama legend built out of whole cloth (I read in one forum recently a serious suggestion that he'd fix the college football bowl system!), I'll be voting for Paul if I have to write his name in.

(1) Am always amused by self-described "Catholic" writers like this Pepperdine law professor who attempt sweeping generalizations about Catholic voters. I'm a VERY active Catholic (Parish Council, Finance Committee member, catechist, lector, etc.) and I find it impossible to place the Catholic voters I know in any particular political category.

(2) Am NOT amused, however, by self-described "Catholic" writers like this one who make light of Catholic traditions. Makes me wonder about the sincerity of his faith. For example, saying that Catholics "light candles at the Republican political altar" or predicting that "more than a few of us are thinking of giving him (McCain) up for Lent" or comparing Huckabee's hopeless attempt to win the nomination with the miracle of the "five loaves and fishes" don't impress this orthodox Catholic. Am surprised he didn't make wisecracks about knuckle-rapping nuns or brown scapulars floating in the pool.

Agree with "The Man From K Street" that this guy is angling for something. Governor Romney should be embarrased to have received his support. Perhaps Professor Kmiec is hoping for a Federal Circuit Court appointment should Obama make it to 1600 Pennsyvania this year.

I am deeply and personally opposed to abortion, for reasons too numerous to mention. First, of course, it's murder. (This would be OK? Yes? No?) Then, we have to deal with the damage to the mother. (I have a friend who recently completed a six month course of therapy in an attempt - somewhat successful but not entirely - to recover from an abortion some 30 years ago. Devastating. As murder ought to be.) "Feminist" advocacy of abortion is unconnected and dishonest BS. Criminal, really.

But I gotta tell you guys, this Republican "pro-life" stance is a shuck. Ronny did it, Bushy did it, everyone bought it, but really, what has happened? Nothing. Is abortion still freely available in this country on demand? Yes. What will happen? Nothing. You-all are being played. This is smoke and mirrors. These guys have absolutely no intention of doing anything but talk. And get your vote under false pretenses.

So, given that, where are we now? The Demos openly repudiate you. The Republicans are as reliable as snakes. So...can we look at other issues? Politics is the art of the possible. Not the ideal.

"When did Christ speak about access to health care or the need to reduce income disparities?"

Around the same time he spoke about embryonic stem cell research. If we can interpret teaching on life to include embryonic stem cell research, we can interpret teaching on poverty and the oppressed to include policies relating to income disparaties and access to health care.

"That's a rather tendentious reading of the Gospels."

Oh dear. Abortion and homosexuality are barely mentioned in the Scriptures. Poverty and the poor are mentioned thousands and thousands of times. Not that you'd know that from the attention some Catholics and Christians give to these issues.

Well, Simon neither does the saying "To each according to his ability to make money," find resonance in the gospels.

When private charity supplies the needs of the poor (including medical care), well then, we can dispense with government, and good riddance. When the poor are supplied with the necessities of life by private charity, we can do away with a great deal of expensive and inefficient government bureaucracy.

When did Christ speak about access to health care or the need to reduce income disparities?

Oh, Jesus would be totally OK with children of low-income families dying from diseases which would be preventable if the wealthy society around them took an interest. Surely. Find THAT in the gospels. Maybe when he comes again these problems will be solved.

Until that day, do the poor have to wait for essential medical care until we-all convert? Or can we sort of "convert" en masse, and ensure a basic level of care for everyone, if from motives of self-interest if from no other?

If you are, as you seem, totally uncaring about everyone else (congratulations), think about yourself. Which you are an expert at.

Don't be smug. You, I assume, Simon, have good medical insurance. Don't assume that it will always be so. Don't get the idea that the minute you develop an expensive medical problem your insurance carrier won't comb your records to find out a way to cancel your coverage. Don't be astonished when your family has to file in bankruptcy because they can't pay your (inflated) doctor and hospital bills.

aaron gives, concisely and in a form which even the most dense could not evade, the atheist view.

"Life sucks. And 'God' is out to get you. Good luck."

How cheery.

I wonder if it was always this hard for Christians/Catholics to choose.

Clearly Both parties have their weaknesses in light of the Gospel.

Is it 'No Respect on Life Issues' or Family Values Democrats or 'Unjust War'(also a Life issue)or 'Money IS Virtue' Republicans that's the worse choice.

Sometimes I just don't know.

But I do know I like what people SAY McCain's core IS better than Obama's hiding and couching pose. Who really is behind Obama's HOPE curtain?

There's not as much of a curtain with McCain. Easier to choose. If Obama would drop the curtain, more people would have a fair shot at making the right choice for America I think.

News Flash:
Obama's sole purpose in this race is to defeat the Clintons, split the Democrats and cause a Republican win.

Subsidiarity.

What can be handled in the family, should be handled in the family. What can be handled in the clan, should be handled in the clan. What can be handled in the village, and so on.

Whatever problem is NOT handled adequately in a lower level kicks up to an upper level, until we CAN handle it.

Health care. For example. It should be handled by any number of lower levels, but the results do not impress. The US spends more per capita for health care than any society in the world, and gets less for it. Good conservatives, seeing this, should advocate for a federal solution.

Why don't they? In a word, greed. They think (erroneously, as it happens) that they and their families are adequately covered by the present inequitable "solution," so to hell with the hindmost.

I was a Republican. No more. I have become convinced that the Republican party serves the self-defined (and, by the way, erroneous) interests of those who Already Have A Lot.

Unwisely. As Doug quotes Chrysostom:"Prosperity breeds carelessness. Men fall asleep..."

The Obama temptation is the classic Emotions versus Thinking
for some people. Yes he may be inspiring, but think of the consequences. Higher taxes, affirmative action shoved down our throats even more, even more diversity-worship (and legislation),
wishful thinking on national security, etc.

No one has ever claimed that the Republican Party consisted entirely of pro-lifers. But the reasons the Party hasn't delivered on that issue is because (i) the courts seized control of it and permit no significant restrictions, and (ii) Democrats politicized the judicial nomination process out of an almost fanatical determination to prevent undoing of Roe v. Wade.

No, Congress punted the issue to the courts. It could have passed a federal law and the issue could be relitigated if the Roe v Wade majority decision is as indefensible as you pretend it is.

The GOP does NOT advocate poverty, unjust war, diminution of human dignity or racism, and in fact opposed all of those things. Your personal interpretation of the likely results of policies advocated by many Republicans is that they will produce those bad things.

Of course not outright. But denying equal protection of the laws/due process and civil rights protections to the extent that can be gotten away with- which is a Republican principle, aka "strict constructionism" - enables and creates them. As John Dean describes Rehnquist's 1969 definition, it means biasing to the prosecution in criminal cases and for the defendants in civil cases.

Creeping increasing inequality before the law corrupts jurisprudence, trust in obtaining actual justice rapidly falls to zero as the system loses trust of the litigants. As might and wealth become right, crime/social disorder and vigilante violence, demoralization and fear for safety become normal as the lower tiers of society despair of government providing justice. And then power rapidly concentrates in the executive as social disorder and mayhem increases, and the executive's favor becomes the decisive factor in the court system and throughout society. Wealth rapidly concentrates at the top too as the system gets gamed by the sufficiently powerful. The losers in this game are put to use fighting external enemies- or their bad behavior is criminalized.

Sound like the story line of any Administrations you've known?

When pro-life Presidents have had a Republican Senate, their appointments have been O'Connor, Scalia, Roberts and Alito. Overall, an excellent lineup. When pro-life Presidents have faced a Democratic Senate, they have pushed through Thomas and tried but failed to appoint Bork. When pro-choice Presidents have nominated Supreme Court justices, the result has been Stevens, Ginsberg and Breyer. That's the sort of judicial dreck a President Obama would give us.

I just remember reading Rehnquist's obituaries- many of them- looking for a specific decision which he could be proudly credited for before history....nary a one. So much of what he "accomplished" in conservative eyes during the Seventies and Eighties was overturned by his own Court in the past ten years. He stayed on the Court with cancer during his last year mostly to prevent one of his remaining major travesties, Richardson v Ramirez, from being overturned. His other major "achievement" is nationwide reinstitution of the death penalty in 1977. In 20 years people will look at them as absurdities.

O'Connor now tells people in private that Bush v Gore and Carthart were wrongly decided. If things do not correct as she hopes, she'll probably say so in public eventually.

Asked to bet on which side of the Court will be vindicated by history, I'll happily take Ginsberg, Breyer, Souter, and Stevens's side.

"For 28 years the Republican party has been promising great things to the pro-life movement, but delivering only purely symbolic victories like the ban on partial birth abortion (which didn’t save a single life). As this happened year after year, I became convinced that this was not an accident- that the Republican party had no intention of ever delivering anything of substance."

If, by fiat, tommorrow morning, the SCOTUS overruled ROe v. Wade, we'd be back with 50 fights in 50 state legislature(which Saint Obama would find "divisive")-which is how it should be in a democratic republic. The idea that Republicans were ever going to ban abortion is so simple-minded it's scary, as if you haven't been paying attention to the debate since 1973. And as Simon says, to then jump to the idea that the most pro-abortion candidate in history would somehow be better in that regard is idiocy. There's much to lnock Mccain about, but on abortion he has been mostly pro-life. Though his offhanded disparagement of Justice Alito gives one pause. Saint Obama, as with eery other issue, is wordy, vague but charismatically verbose and empty.

Yeah, Saint Obama! He'll solve everything-toe lint, gabagemen who leave recyling in front of your house, bird poop on your windshield, you'll lose 20 lbs., etc. He's a desert topping, a floor wax and a president-what a deal!When he tells us all how he's going to pay for cradle-to-grave health care for all of us-a dismal failure everywhere it's been tried-let us all know. But that seems to be a theme-a government spending program for everything. How you gonna pay for ll that Sainted One? Are we going to ahve anyone dare ask the Saint?

McCain and Obama were both in my town this week, seperately of course. I couldn't be bothered to go and see either one. Clinton has outright snubbed us. Good riddance (preemptively, of course). I hold to my belief that none of them are worth voting for (and none of the other also-rans were either). This will be a sham election either way you look at it.

Charles Cosimano
If I were a Democrat politician I would love to see Roe v Wade overturned because that would mean that in two election cycles there would not be enough Republicans left in any office in the country to pay for a dog-catcher.

Indeed. But, Roe v. Wade doesn't need to be overturned, as is demonstrated by ex-Republican like Anne E. As I've pointed out, it's been over 35 years.

Republicans might be a little naive, but they aren't all completely stupid, and it's really obvious absolutely almost no progress is being made, and that by the time Roe v. Wade is overturned, in 62 more years or whenever, society isn't going to care about abortion at all and thus it won't become illegal.

And, incidentally, all you people who complain about how 'vague' Obama is...he's, right now, running against Clinton, whom he has almost no policy disagreements with. They've become reduced to arguing stupid things that are actually going to be decided by Congress, like 'mandates'. You sit down and make a list of the things they've actually said they would do, and they agree 80% of the time, and the other 20% are not important issues.

The rule in the primaries is to take positions on the outside, and then tack towards the middle in the GE. But it would be very stupid for him to state positions to the left of Clinton (And he, indeed, is to the left of.) now that he's obviously going to win, when he'd just have to instantly swing back towards the middle when he does wins.

If you want to find his actual positions on things the nation disagrees on, you're going to have to wait until the general election. Until then, you're only getting his positions on things the Democrats disagree on, which apparently isn't much, and he's in a place where if he just keeps his mouth shut he's going to win, so you're not even going to get that unless Clinton can do something to force his hand.

You're just going to get a bunch of vague nonsense about hope. It's not because he doesn't have anything behind it, it's because, politically, there's no reason for him to reveal it until the general election.

Although this is a fairly unique election, as the Republicans have apparently become insane, so the rules might be slightly different. And, hilariously, McCain will find it almost impossible to move back towards the middle without being crucified by his own party.

So Obama might not have to move at all...he can just wait for McCain to move to some moderate position, get stabbed repeatedly in the back by his own party, have to backtrack, and then Obama can step forward waving the olive branch to try to tempt McCain back towards the middle, where he will be stabbed by his party some more.

I'm imagining an election like:
Voters: The Iraq war is stupid. What is McCain going to do to fix it?
McCain: Well, obviously, we'd have to weigh what we are accomplishing in Iraq with the cost of staying.
Republican base: McCain wants with leave Iraq! He's a traitor. *stab stab stab*
McCain: I, um, but of course I meant we shouldn't leave until the job is done.
Republicans base and normal voters: Ah, of course, that makes sense. (Having different ideas of what 'done' means.)
Obama: I'm sure my respected opponent didn't actually mean we'd stay in Iraq forever if we couldn't fix it. Did you?
McCain: *looks at Republican base, and then looks at normal voters, both wielding knifes* Can I plead the fifth?

The pro-life movement has put all their eggs in the RvW basket (as a result we had Bush). Doesn't anyone remember South Dakota in 2006? Voters still want abortion to be legal. That isn't going to change as long as pro-lifers have their Supreme Court blinkers on.

As this thread demonstrates, more and more pro-lifers are refusing to be duped by the Republican Party, and more and more are refusing to bow to the simple-minded mantra "I'll only vote for politicians who claim to be pro-life."

We won't stop abortion from the top down.

Oh, Jesus would be totally OK with children of low-income families dying from diseases which would be preventable if the wealthy society around them took an interest. Surely. Find THAT in the gospels. Maybe when he comes again these problems will be solved.

Oh, so no wealthy people give to help children? You insult a lot of people you don't know, who give many times your annual income to "help".

Until that day, do the poor have to wait for essential medical care until we-all convert? Or can we sort of "convert" en masse, and ensure a basic level of care for everyone, if from motives of self-interest if from no other?

Gee, I'm not poor, quite the opposite... and I don't have "insurance". Well, not at the moment. I haven't had "insurance" in a long time. As someone who is self employed, "insurance" is really expensive.

But I do go see the doctor now and then. And I leave some dollars lighter. I have no lack of health care. Nor does my family. Now, I have BEEN poor. I have been to the point of not being able to pay a $50 doctor bill. I had to parcel it to them $10 at a time. But had I had some serious issue, someone would have taken care of me. And I'd have had to make payments for years afterwards, to pay the bill.

Oh, wait. I already did that. Multiple times. I had medical bill payments for more than 10 years. Did I at times wish I didn't have that financial burden over me? Yes. But it WAS MY BURDEN, not anyone else's.

Don't be smug. You, I assume, Simon, have good medical insurance. Don't assume that it will always be so. Don't get the idea that the minute you develop an expensive medical problem your insurance carrier won't comb your records to find out a way to cancel your coverage. Don't be astonished when your family has to file in bankruptcy because they can't pay your (inflated) doctor and hospital bills.

I don't know anything about Simon, but I've been there too.

The problem is, your arguments are utterly worthless. There is no reason for any child "dying" from a lack of basic health care. Seriously. No doubt whatsoever, that there will be a doctor's clinic somewhere that will see a child for the cost of a pair of Nikes, or designer jeans. There's a ton of "poor" people who will spend more than the c ost of a doctor's visit EVERY month on coffee and cigarettes. Or on McDonald's for lunch. Or on Cable TV. Or a cell phone they don't REALLY need.

But, if you're going to argue (as you've done here) that because we're Christians, we're required to provide everyone thier basic needs, then why start with Health Care?

I often go years without seeing a doctor. My kids do too. Same about the Dentist. Even with my wife's severe allergies and some chronic health issues like Athsma, we don't spend over $300 a month for a family of 7. That's likely less than the cost Hillary wants to force you to pay for "insurance".

How long can you go without eating? If you can't afford health care, when the doctor's visits are less than it costs to fill the average gas tank twice, you definitely can't afford food. But you can go several days without eating, and still live.

But what about a home? You can't make it overnight up north in the winter. You'll die of exposure.

If you don't have $80 for a doctor's visit, you dont' have enough to eat for even a month. If you don't have enough to eat for a month, you REALLY can't afford a home to live in.

So, if it REQUIRES federal universal health care to be "compassionate", then I submit it requires far more than that. After all, there has only been effective medicine for less than a couple hundred years.

So, if your argument is valid, then we really have an obligation to federalize housing. Every one is gauranteed basic housing. Food. Everyone is gauranteed basic food, and we have to federalize food.

Why, if our health care system is so evil... are we allowing Safeway and ADM, and WalMart to exist? How can allow huge profits for contractors and real estate speculators, when people are dying from the consequences of homelessness?

Or, maybe the real problem, is that you aren't making a rational conclusion in the first place. Basic health care, a few medicines and a couple visits a year costs less than almost EVERYONE pays for satellite or cable TV.

Who doesn't have cable or satellite? I dare say a lot of people who insist they have no means of paying to see the doctor are spending far more to watch TV. And you enable them with your arguments.

You see, if a person is THAT destitute, they don't need federalized health care, they need a JOB. If someone is that destitute, they don't need to be forced to buy insurance for health care, they need a HOME.

Basic medical needs for most people is a pittance - a few hundred dollars a year or less. That's no national emergency. But nobody is willing to live with only "basic". They want EVERY medical wonder that exists given to them, when things get rough, and disease strikes.

Not even us, with our 6 figure income, can afford insurance that provides UNLIMITED care, and all the specialities that have been developed. If I or my wife developed cancer, we'd be bankrupted. And so would almost everyone, even those WITH insurance, if it were a protracted struggle. Most health insurance has limits.. often limited at hundreds of thousands. But there are medical procedures and treatments that cost tens, hundreds of thousands... into the millions.

The truth is, that far too many people are horrible financial managers. They are in debt, have no savings, and spend even thier last dollar, without saving money for "health care".

If that is just cause to turn all health care over to the government... And we know how horrendously incompetent, wasteful, corrupt, and politically favorited government is, then before we get there, we should also do away with "capitalism" providing homes, food, clothing, and transportation.

And take away all those "things" we don't need, like Ipods, Iphones, INTERNET SERVICES, gambling, fast food, Nikes, BlingBling, cocaine, booze, beer... That would do far more toward MAKING people "afford" health care.

But somehow I don't see anyone advocating that. Rather, I see people advocating further empowering a corrupt government wallowing in incomprehensible sums of our money and in debt as well, to be more wasteful and controlling than it is. And then equating that action with being "Christian".

It looks like corrupt politics to me, and nothign whatsoever to do with loving and caring for your neighbor, just a weak and vapid justification.