Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church

Obamacare Passes in the House

November 7th, 2009, Promulgated by Dr. K

According to MSNBC, the United Stated House of Representatives voted largely along party lines to pass the Democrats’ health care bill by a vote of 220 to 215. Only one Republican voted for the bill, while 39 Democrats voted against Obamacare. Before the vote was taken on the Obama bill, the House voted on and passed an amendment (the “Stupak Amendment”) which restricts government funding of abortion in most instances by a vote of 240 to 194. This abortion amendment is a victory for pro-lifers.

The Obama health care bill will now head to the U.S. Senate in the coming weeks.

Tags: ,


15 Responses to “Obamacare Passes in the House”

  1. Anonymous says:

    A good step toward universal health care and a good start to ending abortion.

  2. "39 conservative-leaning Democrats voted against Obamacare"

    Not all the Democrats voting 'No' were conservatives. A number of liberals (such as Kucinich of Ohio) voted 'No' as they thought the bill did not go far enough.

  3. Dr. K says:

    Thanks for the correction. I fixed the post.

    ~Dr. K

  4. A good step toward irrevocably altering the relationship between citizen and state in direct contravention of Catholic teaching.

    In any event, it will die in the Senate, thank God.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Kucinich is a man of principal, but some is better than nothing.

  6. Anonymous says:

    The Catholic Church does not teach that governments cannot be involved as Society in helping individuals. That is false.

  7. The Catholic Church does not teach that governments cannot be involved as Society in helping individuals. That is false.

    Look up the paragraphs on subsidiarity in the Compendium of Social Doctrine or the Catechism. Obamacare does violence to the this bedrock Catholic principle.

  8. Anonymous says:

    "Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do."

    Only very wealthy individuals can pay for their health care out of pocket. The rest must obtain health insurance. The private health insurance industry has proven ineffective at providing universal health care. Although many Catholics persist incorrectly in saying that health care is not a right the Church teaches clearly that it is. The Church does not teach that government must limit itself to very narrow areas of national defense etc. It may do for individuals what is impractical by other means. Are you opposed to Social Security and Medicare? Medicare was intended to eventually cover more than seniors. What this legislation provides is a very small start to covering health insurance for Americans who have been unable to do it on their own. In the modern world some form of government help is necessary for society's least fortunate. The Church does not oppose that. I do not believe this country will ever have a 100% single payer system. It will probably end up like countries with public/private systems. We have that already with Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Administration etc. This will just take care of more who need help. I know many people who are uninsured because their jobs do not offer coverage and they cannot afford it on their own. This will help and the Church will not disapprove.

  9. gretchen says:

    Anon 9:35,

    The new health care bill says that people who refuse to purchase insurance will go to JAIL. Show me where the Catholic Church teaches that that is OK.

    When I was young and newly out of college, it was cheaper and made more fiscal sense for me to pay out of pocket for my once-a-year doctor visit than to pony up for an expensive policy that would go unused. (I had major medical – in case of disaster – through my employer.) Should I have gone to jail???

  10. Sed says:

    I regretfully think this bill will be passed in the Senate. It's a real shame. Tax from the rich and give to the poor, that's the Obama motto. When you take from the rich, that means the rich will have less surplus to donate for philanthropic purposes, such as children hospitals and institutes of higher learning.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Although the Stupak amendment limiting federal funding for abortion passed the House version of the bill, there is little expectation it will remain in a conference committee bill if the Senate passes any bill to be reconciled with the House bill. As House Minority Leader Boenher pointed out in his floor speech during Saturday's 'debate' this is nothing but a shell game. Rep. Rangel would not give any assurance that he would even vote to uphold Stupak in a conference committee vote on a reconciliation of differing bills. Rep. Rangel used a cute line that it might even be an ethics violation to make such a commitment.

  12. Anonymous says:

    To those opposed to the bill, how would you provide universal health insurance to the millions of Americans who are uninsured? Remember, the Church teaches that health care and the means to acquire it is a right, not a privilege that cannot be denied due to income.

  13. Mary Kay says:

    Anon8:20, if you wish to be taken seriously, you might consider creating and using a consistent user name.

  14. gretchen says:

    Anon 8:20,

    It is important to keep in mind that health insurance is not equal to health care. It is illegal for hospitals to deny anyone emergency care because of inability to pay.

    In their minds, many people equate health insurance with health care, but the reality is that if the government gets into the business of supplying everyone's health insurance, much of the world class health care that we Americans currently enjoy will cease to exist because the doctors will no longer be able to afford to provide it.

    It is also important to recognize that there are many legitimate reasons for NOT having health insurance. For people who require very little from their physician, it is much cheaper for them to pay as they go. That saves them money, yet does not take away from anyone else. Why should they be compelled to buy insurance they don't need?

    Somehow we have forgotten that we bear responsibility for our own actions and our own fiscal well-being. It is not the government's job to spoon-feed each and every last citizen. When we are done raping and pillaging "the rich," and they are now poor like the rest of us, where shall we turn?

    I would never want anyone to pay my way. I just want the opportunity to work to pay my own way.

  15. Anonymous says:

    Would you rather Tom Golisano's money goes towards government health insurance for a small part of the population that is living off welfare because they're too damn lazy to get a job, or for it to go to the Children's hospital at Strong?

    When you tax the hell out of the rich, you take away money that would otherwise go towards noble causes.

Leave a Reply

Log in | Register

You must be logged in to post a comment.

-Return to main page-