The more you know ...

But according to some Catholic advocacy groups we should go full speed ahead with Obamacare and not worry about these details.

Not only that, but if you disagree, you're a racist and a bad Catholic and condemned to hell because health care is a RIGHT which we cannot even begin to debate...even if the right to health care (which is in the Catechism) is in conflict with other things in the Catechism. You know, like the right to LIFE and how LIFE should be respected from conception to natural death, regardless of disability, age, or other "subjective" factors.

I believe that tort reform, along with other changes to laws (like mandates on coverage) will open wide the door for Catholics to do good work of caring for the sick.

But this health care bill isn't the solution. Especially since it treats people like COMMODITIES rather than humans made in the image and likeness of God.

oh but wait the President told us "we aren't going to pull the plug on grandma ..."

It seems that the Townhall angries are like people waking from a semi-conscious state to find someone is putting a pillow over their faces. Meanwhile, the Last Self-Help Administration knows that the public long ago gave up believing politicians tell the truth, so he doesn't.

It's like the "Land Shark" of old SNL days - It doesn't matter what he says, just any and everything to accomplish his goal.

I haven't followed the Catholic side of the Hell Care proposal, but let me guess. The Knights are for it? I heard Supreme Knight Carl Anderson say something about being for health care reform, so long as it did not include abortion. I don't think the Knights really think things through. Or they're just clueless buffoons. Or they're really Manchurian Catholics. There are a lot of those. Even if abortion was specifically excluded now, a bill to include it could be introduced the day after the current bill was signed into law. Recall that the KOC was all for amnesty for illegal aliens, although it would have swelled the ranks of voters for the abortion party. Amnesty would, and may still, effectively kill the Pro-Life movement. It would not matter if a majority of illegals were pro-life. An overwhelming majority would still vote for the abortion party. That's all that would matter.
As for health care being a "right." (Gee, there is no mention of it in my copy of the constitution.) That would be a reason to oppose Obamacare. Under Obamacare, insurance coverage would be universal, but actual care would not be universally available. Furthermore, the care which was available would be of a diminished quality. When people can go anywhere for care, they go to the US. We're not helping anyone by screwing around with the best system in the world. Also, Obamacare would diminish the pharmaceutical industry's incentive to develop new drugs. The pharma companies make their money in the US, because all of the socialized systems in the world greatly limit what they will pay for drugs. Drugs are developed for the US market, and sold to the rest of the world for little more than the cost of the manufacture of the actual pills. The US private market covers the R&D costs and most of the profit for the pharma companies. Obamacare would change that, resulting in far fewer new drugs. How does that help the poor of the world, exactly?
I'll close with this thought, the British system includes universal DENTAL coverage. How has that worked out?

Amy P above nails it.

The cathi-justi-socialists are in the tank for Obama and collectivism, and their true gospel is Mao's little red book. "Resistence to confiscation of your property is futile. You're going to hell!"

PS: Once the filthy commies get control (that is the goal here, people!) of hell care, they will make it illegal to pay for more than two live births per woman. But, sex change operations . . . covered.

See Pertinacious Papist's recent illuminating post on how, long ago, so-called cathi-theologians allied themselves with extremists pushing abortion, eugenics, euthanasia, population control, etc.

But! But! They're intentions are pure - evil!

They (any Catholic that voted for Obama, too) are all traitors against Christ and his Holy Church.

Fortunately, health reform will likely pass despite the misguided efforts of some radical "Catholics" who put politics above church teaching.

"They (any Catholic that voted for Obama, too) are all traitors against Christ and his Holy Church."

I think you mean they are traitors against an insignificant, irrelevant, angry little fringe group within the church that is more interested in the republican party than in being Christ to others. Right? Isn't that what you meant?

Trevor N. and R. Nesbaum:

How is "being Christ to others" and "putting politics above Church teaching" gel with the health care bill's provisions that will 1) certainly cover abortion and 2) likely limit care to the elderly, the infirm, or the disabled?

Please, by all means, show me where in Scripture OR the Catechism we are "being Christ to others" by sacrificing the lives of the least of us (the unborn, the disabled, the elderly) to pass a health care bill that neither respects Church teaching (watch how they treat Catholic hospitals or medical staff who put the teachings of the Church above Moloch) nor life.

Teaching is clear: abortion and euthanasia/assisted are always moral wrongs and intrinsic evils. Since the former is clearly part of this legislation, and the latter likely will be as more Boomers age, I'm amused to see how you attempt to condemn critics of health care as being un-Catholic.

I'd say that even if the abortion stuff was out of the proposal, a Catholic could in good conscience object to it on a number of grounds (subsidiarity, prudence, etc.) Trevor's ad hominem notwithstanding.

R. Nesbaum writes in response to T. Shaw:
"'They (any Catholic that voted for Obama, too) are all traitors against Christ and his Holy Church.'
I think you mean they are traitors against an insignificant, irrelevant, angry little fringe group within the church that is more interested in the republican party than in being Christ to others. Right? Isn't that what you meant?"

No, "Catholic" democrats are traitors in that they have placed loyalty to their party before loyalty to their faith. Whatever the democratic party embraces, they embrace, without any concern of whether these new positions are consistent with their faith. Such people have no problem with co-habitation, homosexuality, pornography, contraception, divorce... Need I go on? How can they be "Christ to others" when they are in all ways indistinguishable from the non-Catholics around them?
And what do you mean by being Christ to others? Would that include supporting a welfare system which actually promotes and perpetuates poverty? Would that include the cultural imperialism of withholding aid to countries which do not permit abortion? Would that include giving virtually nothing to charity? Joe Biden has this one down cold. His charitable contributions averaged $300 to $400 per annum from 1997 to 2007. (At least he didn't claim used underwear as a charitable deduction like Al Gore.) Obama won't help anyone. If he wanted to help, he'd cut our corporate tax, which is high in comparison to other developed countries. That would lead to job creation. That's what Ireland did in the 1990's. It has worked here as well. Instead, he's running up our debt.
Oh, what about his earlier proposal to limit charitable deductions for higher income Americans? How is that being Christ to others?
Government does not help people. People help people. I do it. So can you. We don't need our money to be filtered through a greedy and intrusive government bureaucracy.
FTR, my only interest in the Republican Party is that it is presently far preferable to the wasteful, greedy, and licentious Democratic Party. If the Democratic Party changed dramatically for the better, I might consider becoming a Democrat. I have no great loyalty to the Republican Party, a party which disappoints me so frequently, especially here in NJ.

I would I could link to the person who said "No, Obama won't pull the plug on Grandma; he won't plug her in in the first place."

Denial of medical care will start much earlier in the chain than it does with managed care options.