Yes We Can!

posted at 12:25 pm on March 10, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

My friend Jazz Shaw has an, er, interesting take on my post regarding FOCA and Catholic hospitals.  He finds the final option of closure by Catholic bishops opposed to government coercion of abortions so distasteful that he wonders aloud whether the Catholic Church can be allowed to close its hospitals, or whether farmers can choose not to farm:

One of the fundamental dangers – widely and correctly considered to be a threat to our national security – of allowing foreign, potentially hostile nations to control our supply of oil, is the concern that they could cut it off at any time for any reason to our detriment. They might do it for religious or political reasons, or perhaps as part of a larger war effort. This is why it’s important to boost our own supplies. If we are to take the Catholic Church at their word, then FOCA and the larger abortion question have nothing to do with this question. The true issue is that they are apparently willing to cut off all emergency, required medical support to their individual communities because they do not agree with restrictions and legislation passed by the lawfully elected government of the United States.

First, Catholic hospitals are not owned by “foreign, potentially hostile nations.”  They’re usually owned by the diocese, and sometimes by Catholic orders which exist independent of the diocese relationship.  They receive their funds from parishioners in that diocese as well as through such fees as can be collected from patients and their insurers.  Unlike OPEC, they don’t operate a monopoly.  Anyone can open a hospital in the US, as long as they don’t mind losing money as Catholic hospitals do, thanks to their charitable work in low-income communities. That’s a strange analogy to use.

We’re not talking about a car dealership closing down here. Were that the case, drivers could travel to purchase cars from more distant towns until the demands of the open market drove the opening of a new dealership.

Well, that’s actually what we are talking about.  If a Catholic hospital closes, people will have to go to another health-care facility.  Again, Catholics do not have a monopoly on health-care facilities, nor have they ever argued for having one. They do offer health care as a voluntary service to poorer communities as part of their social-justice mission.  The other options may be farther away or not as accommodating, but that’s just the way it is.

Suddenly cutting off local health care is on par with suddenly putting an embargo on a nation’s oil supply.

Again, Catholics do not run the entire health-care system.  It’s nothing of the sort.

If the representatives of the Catholic Church who control the flow of vital health care services are willing to even suggest that they would remove all health care because of rules and laws regarding abortion and family planning, they are, in effect, threatening an even worse embargo and demonstrating that they really don’t care about the welfare of the citizens in their communities.

I’d argue that they’re setting their priorities in keeping with the tenets of their faith, and again, the argument that closing the 4,000 Catholic facilities around the nation would end all health care in America is just silly.  They are a small but important part of the health care system, but they are not a national HMO, which gets us to the crux of Jazz’s argument.

What if the nation’s farmers banded together and declared that all food production would suddenly cease unless the government abandoned NAFTA? Can we legally force them to produce food even if people are starving the next week?

Er, no.  You can’t force farmers to produce food if they don’t want to do so, and I’d think this was rather obvious.  It’s their land, and they can choose not to grow crops if they want.  It may not be their land for long if they don’t get revenue from it, but the government cannot march onto the farm and force them to work the land, even if they default on the mortgages.  That’s slavery, and though Jazz jokes about writing this for Pravda, it’s exactly what the Soviets did for decades and what the Germans did in 1933 with their Hereditary Farm Law (William Shirer’s Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, pp 257-8).

Catholic churches own these hospitals, and they can choose at any time to close their businesses, just as anyone else can close their business when it no longer makes a profit or when other costs become too high.  Just as with the farmers, all the government can do is negotiate with them to find ways to keep them in business, but government has no right to force a private business to remain open — or to offer services to which the proprietor objects.  If government action threatens to force Catholics to choose between their faith and their hospitals, then government needs to determine whether they’d rather the hospitals stay open or force a showdown.

Don’t worry; Jazz does better on Card Check.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Health care is a good, not a right. That pretty much moots the argument. That is, unless you want to create an Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Law.

Vashta.Nerada on March 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM

How about making potential patients provide a certified copy of their Baptismal Certificate to receive treatment?

coldwarrior on March 10, 2009 at 12:29 PM

My friend Jazz Shaw has an, er, interesting take on my post regarding FOCA and Catholic hospitals.

Even the best horses have the occassional stumble.

BadgerHawk on March 10, 2009 at 12:29 PM

Since when can we EVER expect the nitwits in Government to care about the unintended consequences of laws they pass? They aren’t smart enough to know the actual consequences! Next…

sabbott on March 10, 2009 at 12:30 PM

So in essence he’s saying the Catholic Church will be acting immorally if it shuts down their health care because it finds government coercion of abortions morally objectionable?

Talk about standing things on their head!

INC on March 10, 2009 at 12:30 PM

Creepy stuff from that guy Jazz Shaw. But, it’s fairly standard gruel for both sides actually these days.

The Dean on March 10, 2009 at 12:30 PM

Does Ed know that Rand was an atheist?

DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:32 PM

We are not a nation of slaves.

My collie says:

Someone needs to tell that to the slave trader in chief.

CyberCipher on March 10, 2009 at 12:32 PM

Does Ed know that Rand was an atheist?

DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:32 PM

How is that relevant to this topic?

LastRick on March 10, 2009 at 12:33 PM

This goes along with what I said a while ago. If the Catholic hospitals close due to FOCA, it provides the perfect opportunity for the Feds to take them over “for the good of the people”. This kind of thinking will make it possible.

efemdy on March 10, 2009 at 12:34 PM

We are not a nation of slaves.

Not yet, but soon. Once the non-taxpaying population voting itself largesse reaches critical mass, i.e. 51%, we are the new slaves.

drjohn on March 10, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Cover of Rand’s book is on this thread. And Ed is claiming that religion should be of such a high priority that it holds dominion over a hospitals ability to provide healthcare. It’s exactly the kind of thing Rand warned against. One wonders if he’s read her work…

DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:34 PM

According to liberals (and unfortunately, many conservatives as well) individuals have an obligation to work for the betterment of the state.

The state has a right to ban anything which impedes your ability to contribute to the greater good.

MarkTheGreat on March 10, 2009 at 12:35 PM

If he really wants to use a Farm analogy, he should get it right.

Imagine that the government decided that since people should be able to get meat, all farms had to raise pigs for slaughter. Would you require that people whose religion prohibits such acts from leaving farming?

OBQuiet on March 10, 2009 at 12:36 PM

Very vell Doctooor ve vill hold your family until you perform deez abortions.

roux on March 10, 2009 at 12:36 PM

DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Apparently, you’ve never read the book.

Vashta.Nerada on March 10, 2009 at 12:36 PM

I would much rather see the Church simply defy the government, remain open, and continue to refuse abortions. Let’s see how the public reacts when the Obama Health Police show up at the doors of the hospitals with guns blazing.

rockmom on March 10, 2009 at 12:36 PM

“foreign, potentially hostile nations.”

Since when was the Vatican a ‘potentially hostile nation’? That’s the only foreign nation I can imagine being run by a Catholic hospital. I’ve found them to be excellent in rendering care to the local communities, and they’re usually owned by and run by the locals.

I’ll go w/ what efemedy said. This paper is bogus, and it’s purpose is obfuscation on behalf of a government takeover.

Chaz706 on March 10, 2009 at 12:36 PM

who is this Jazzshaw guy? He’s my kind of fascist (joke!) – telling organizations and people what they can and can’t do! And to think I believed he was a libertarian or something…

Princeps on March 10, 2009 at 12:36 PM

Anyone can open a hospital in the US,..

Except Illinois. You have to bribe the right people. Tony Rezko did not get his money, so two hospitals were not built in Tinley Park, near my hometown and the now hometown of Rev Jerimiah Wright.

WashJeff on March 10, 2009 at 12:36 PM

And Ed is claiming that religion should be of such a high priority that it holds dominion over a hospitals ability to provide healthcare.
DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:34 PM

One is enumerated in the Constitution (you may have heard of it). The other is not.

CDeb on March 10, 2009 at 12:37 PM

What if there’s a nationwide outbreak of Blue flu?

Christien on March 10, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Also? (per usual) Ed’s “argument” is intellectually dishonest. I am sure there are some towns where there is only one major hospital and where that hospital is a Catholic one. I can see a lot of small towns in states like PA, WI, or IL being hamstrung by the decision to shut down a hospital for these reasons. And when someone is ill in a hospital you don’t want to have to drive an HOUR to see them every night because the catholic church hospital decided it just “couldn’t” give out birth control and therefore had to close.

DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Cover of Rand’s book is on this thread. And Ed is claiming that religion should be of such a high priority that it holds dominion over a hospitals ability to provide healthcare. It’s exactly the kind of thing Rand warned against. One wonders if he’s read her work…

DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Rand is clearly used here as an example of the slavery topic: farmers being forced to farm when it’s against their financial interests. Her religion or lack thereof is not the topic. If you believe she made a relevant point about religion and the workplace, please provide an example before making assumptions about Ed’s knowledge of her work.

LastRick on March 10, 2009 at 12:37 PM

I would much rather see the Church simply defy the government, remain open, and continue to refuse abortions. Let’s see how the public reacts when the Obama Health Police show up at the doors of the hospitals with guns blazing.

rockmom on March 10, 2009 at 12:36 PM

I would like to see the catholic father stand at the door and tell them ‘you can have this hospital when you pry it from my cold dead hands.’

But I’m not sure how/if he’d say that because Catholics are pacifists.

Chaz706 on March 10, 2009 at 12:37 PM

LastRick on March 10, 2009 at 12:33 PM

No $hit. So was Orianna Fallacci, one of Pope BXVI’s greatest supporters before cancer took her from us (RIP,Orianna). Just because Fallacci was an atheist doesn’t detract from her insightful criticisms of Muslim “culture.” Just like Rand’s atheism doesn’t detract from her insights on totalitarian leftists.

PimFortuynsGhost on March 10, 2009 at 12:38 PM

If we have national health care won’t the government just end up taking all the hospitals over anyway?

zmdavid on March 10, 2009 at 12:38 PM

Modern-day slavery is alive and well…It just has a new “master” in a different position of power, and this particular setup has existed SINCE the days of traditional “black” slavery.

What is it?

Entitlements.

Once you accept help from someone (or some thing) in a position of power who has a vested interest in seeing you STAY in a position of need…you have, by default, willfully succumbed to modern-day slavery.

Sorry – off on a little tangent there.

Talismen on March 10, 2009 at 12:38 PM

DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:34 PM

You’re reaching for your gotchas.

It’s kind of obvious that Ed did that to make the point that the Catholic Church will shrug rather than be forced to do abortions.

Just taking one point of comparison or one quote never implies you agree with everything an author may say.

INC on March 10, 2009 at 12:38 PM

Oh, health care is likely going to be defined as a right Real Soon Now.

At which point it will enter a downward spiral.

The thing about market forces is they find a way around. If the U.S. health care goes to hell in a hand-basket, look for the off-shoring of high-end health care clinics. Cuba and Dominican Republic and Hati could, for example, build high-end luxury resort cum hospitals for foreigners with enough hard currency.

What then, Obama?

Mew

acat on March 10, 2009 at 12:38 PM

Does Ed know that Rand was an atheist?

DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:32 PM

The sad thing is Hack actually believes this should matter.

MarkTheGreat on March 10, 2009 at 12:38 PM

I am sure there are some towns where there is only one major hospital and where that hospital is a Catholic one.

DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Then you should be able to provide an example. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

LastRick on March 10, 2009 at 12:38 PM

Cover of Rand’s book is on this thread. And Ed is claiming that religion should be of such a high priority that it holds dominion over a hospitals ability to provide healthcare. It’s exactly the kind of thing Rand warned against. One wonders if he’s read her work…

If you don’t understand why Ed put that pic up there, you haven’t read the book. It has nothing to do with religion.

The post addresses a central tenet of Atlas Shrugged – you can’t force a mind, you can’t force producers to produce, and if you try, you’re going to get what you deserve. You idiot.

Read up, chump. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Good Lt on March 10, 2009 at 12:38 PM

I love seeing my name (Rand) in headlines at HotAir.com perhaps one day it will actually be about me… Ruling the World…

don’t worry… I’ll make every single HotAir commenter a member of my cabinet… regardless of Tax debt.

Kaptain Amerika on March 10, 2009 at 12:39 PM

I would much rather see the Church simply defy the government, remain open, and continue to refuse abortions. Let’s see how the public reacts when the Obama Health Police show up at the doors of the hospitals with guns blazing.

rockmom on March 10, 2009 at 12:36 PM

I agree. It would be interesting to see how all of the Catholics in the Senate react to it as well!

INC on March 10, 2009 at 12:39 PM

Your friend Jazz Shaw is a socialist, Ed, although I’m sure he would deny it. Legally force the Church to keep its health facilities open? Not in the US, pal, but maybe in the SSA of your dreams.

james23 on March 10, 2009 at 12:39 PM

Jazz is not a moderate of any kind, okay? Good heavens. Think about some of his positions. It’s pretty clear.

The moment the concept of rights becomes the obligation under force of law for one person to provide something to another person, then you have taken a step towards slavery, perforce. If you really believe health care is a right and it must be provided to you, you also believe, inexorably, whether you admit it or not, that someone else is your indentured servant. The choice of paperback cover for this thread is quite germane.

George Orwell on March 10, 2009 at 12:41 PM

Cover of Rand’s book is on this thread. And Ed is claiming that religion should be of such a high priority that it holds dominion over a hospitals ability to provide healthcare. It’s exactly the kind of thing Rand warned against. One wonders if he’s read her work…

DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Looks like Hacks only managed to read the marxist cliff notes version.

If he can reproduce the passage where Rand argues that people are not allowed to act on their own moral code, I would greatly appreciate it.

MarkTheGreat on March 10, 2009 at 12:41 PM

Cover of Rand’s book is on this thread. And Ed is claiming that religion should be of such a high priority that it holds dominion over a hospitals ability to provide healthcare. It’s exactly the kind of thing Rand warned against. One wonders if he’s read her work…

DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:34 PM

The notion that a business can close its doors when it finds government coercion too onerous seems to me to be exactly in line with Rand’s thinking.

So how about this, President Abortion moderates his stance and ditches FOCA because forcing Catholics to administer abortions isn’t as important as allowing the to voluntarily administer health care for the poor?

18-1 on March 10, 2009 at 12:42 PM

Also? (per usual) Ed’s “argument” is intellectually dishonest. …

the catholic church hospital decided it just “couldn’t” give out birth control and therefore had to close.

DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:37 PM

I call pot and kettle.

Vashta.Nerada on March 10, 2009 at 12:42 PM

Also? (per usual) Ed’s “argument” is intellectually dishonest. I am sure there are some towns where there is only one major hospital and where that hospital is a Catholic one. I can see a lot of small towns in states like PA, WI, or IL being hamstrung by the decision to shut down a hospital for these reasons. And when someone is ill in a hospital you don’t want to have to drive an HOUR to see them every night because the catholic church hospital decided it just “couldn’t” give out birth control and therefore had to close.

DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:37 PM

So? The Catholic Church is not required to provide health care. They open hospitals voluntarily, and they can get out of the business when they choose. The government has no right to tell any private business that they must remain open if the owners want to shut it down. If you’re worried about the effect a government mandate to provide abortion will create, then argue against the mandate — but the fact that a hospital exists now doesn’t bind the church to keeping it open forever if it chooses to exit the business.

And yes, I know Rand was an atheist. This isn’t a theological point, it’s a political issue of freedom vs slavery. From your response, I doubt seriously you have read Atlas Shrugged, because it speaks directly to this point.

Ed Morrissey on March 10, 2009 at 12:43 PM

Force the Catholic hospitals to keep operating against their will? Man, that’s creepy stuff more suited for tyranical governments that a free society.

docdave on March 10, 2009 at 12:43 PM

Read up, chump. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Good Lt on March 10, 2009 at 12:38 PM

I do actually. And I don’t think you quite understand all the applications of objectivism. The whole premise behind the idea that you “can’t force a mind/producers etc” is that individual self-motivation is the only “pure” source of charity/productivity and societal advancement. Rand is just as critical of religion compelling individuals to act in ways for “moral reasons” as she is of the government compelling individuals to pay taxes for the “greater good.” Thus, if Rand were presented with a private, profitable, hospital that refused to produce because of the dictates of a higher body, i.e. Catholic dogma, she would dissaprove. This isn’t that hard to understand.

DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:43 PM

Looks like Hacks only managed to read the marxist cliff notes version.

He didn’t even read that.

Ignore him – he already demonstrated he never read Atlas Shrugged and therefore makes asinine comments based on something he hasn’t read and doesn’t understand.

Good Lt on March 10, 2009 at 12:44 PM

And Ed is claiming that religion should be of such a high priority that it holds dominion over a hospitals ability to provide healthcare.
DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Not ability to provide healthcare, choice to provide healthcare by a private, faith-based hospital system. The basic question Ed is posing is whether the federal government can force a private institution to operate.

Bishop on March 10, 2009 at 12:44 PM

DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Given the number of specialists who’ve fled Illinois’ insane malpractice rates over the last decade or so, it’s already getting hard to find more than a general practitioner at an emergency room outside of the metro areas.

Mew

acat on March 10, 2009 at 12:44 PM

Ed’s “argument” is intellectually dishonest. I am sure there are some towns where there is only one major hospital and where that hospital is a Catholic one…

DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Should we not then respect the operators of vital service? If the people of the town could always raise their own taxes and build a public hostpital\care center. Or, they could help vote these people out office that helped pass the laws and hope that the Catholic hospital repoens once the law is overturned.

This imposing views on individuals and private organizations from the federal level is just baffling!

WashJeff on March 10, 2009 at 12:44 PM

Also? (per usual) Ed’s “argument” is intellectually dishonest. I am sure there are some towns where there is only one major hospital and where that hospital is a Catholic one.
DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:37 PM

And your argument is, as usual, utterly incoherent?
Are these small towns the only populations centers on the planet?
Are there no cars or other means of transportation on this planet of yours?

Are you arguing that people should be forced to violate their personal moral codes if the govt decides that the needs of others is great enough? If so, where does this power of govt end? (If I know you, it ends at the point when your morals get violated.)

MarkTheGreat on March 10, 2009 at 12:44 PM

And just to illustrate my point

Today, Catholicism and communism may well cooperate, on the premise that they will fight each other for power later, but must first destroy their common enemy, the individual, by forcing mankind to unite to form one neck-ready for one leash.
Ayn Rand

DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:45 PM

The beatings will continue until morale improves.

a capella on March 10, 2009 at 12:45 PM

DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:43 PM

Death,

Quick question. If I have a belief that conflicts with my job, am I legally obligated to continue in that job?

No.

Everything else comes down to this point… if the Catholics choose to shrug, there is precisely nothing anyone can do about it.

Mew

acat on March 10, 2009 at 12:46 PM

Thus, if Rand were presented with a private, profitable, hospital that refused to produce because of the dictates of a higher body, i.e. Catholic dogma, she would dissaprove. This isn’t that hard to understand.
DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:43 PM

Which way do you think Rand would lean: having a private religious hospital close due to their “dogma” or having the federal government force them to operate? Disapproval is one thing, forced servitude is another. This isn’t that hard to understand.

Bishop on March 10, 2009 at 12:47 PM

Also? (per usual) Ed’s “argument” is intellectually dishonest. I am sure there are some towns where there is only one major hospital and where that hospital is a Catholic one. I can see a lot of small towns in states like PA, WI, or IL being hamstrung by the decision to shut down a hospital for these reasons. And when someone is ill in a hospital you don’t want to have to drive an HOUR to see them every night because the catholic church hospital decided it just “couldn’t” give out birth control and therefore had to close.

DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Then perhaps our new benevolent dictator Pelosi, who cclaims to be a Catholic, should reconsider such an onerous law that will force communities to go without essential health care in the name of shoving her abortion agenda down our throats.

rockmom on March 10, 2009 at 12:47 PM

Thus, if Rand were presented with a private, profitable, hospital that refused to produce because of the dictates of a higher body, i.e. Catholic dogma, she would dissaprove. This isn’t that hard to understand.

DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:43 PM

You’ve now written this (or something similar) twice and yet provided no proof. Give me a relevant passage from Atlas Shrugged or Fountainhead or any other work of hers and I’ll turn to it; they’re sitting right beside me. I’m willing to believe you if you’ll show me where she said this.

LastRick on March 10, 2009 at 12:47 PM

One wonders if he’s read her work…
DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:34 PM

One wonders if you’ve read Ed’s or Rand’s work.

DamnCat on March 10, 2009 at 12:47 PM

Cover of Rand’s book is on this thread. And Ed is claiming that religion should be of such a high priority that it holds dominion over a hospitals ability to provide healthcare. It’s exactly the kind of thing Rand warned against. One wonders if he’s read her work…

DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Looks like Hacks only managed to read the marxist cliff notes version.

If he can reproduce the passage where Rand argues that people are not allowed to act on their own moral code, I would greatly appreciate it.

MarkTheGreat on March 10, 2009 at 12:41 PM

Ayn Rand was an atheist, yes, but where Catholic healthcare is concerned, that’s beside the point. Acting according to one’s own conscience, to the end of one’s own interests is the most important moral imperative in Randian objectivism. To attempt to coerce someone is equally wrong whether the coercion is by government, religious figures, or individuals.

gryphon202 on March 10, 2009 at 12:47 PM

DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:45 PM

I see your Ayn Rand. So what?

Does not change the question of what happens if Catholics shrug.

Mew

acat on March 10, 2009 at 12:48 PM

And I don’t think you quite understand all the applications of objectivism.

Actually, I’m quite familiar with them

Thus, if Rand were presented with a private, profitable, hospital that refused to produce because of the dictates of a higher body, i.e. Catholic dogma, she would dissaprove. This isn’t that hard to understand.

She wouldn’t care – she knows that it isn’t her prerogative to tell private businesses what they should or shouldn’t do based on her beliefs.

You fail. Read up.

Good Lt on March 10, 2009 at 12:48 PM

You people do realize that Rand wrote more than just Atlas Shrugged (which I have no read) Capitalism the Unknown Ideal though.

DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:48 PM

If we have national health care won’t the government just end up taking all the hospitals over anyway?

zmdavid on March 10, 2009 at 12:38 PM

I’m thinking that is actualy all part of the plan.

Obama, and Rahm’s, belief that you should not let a crises go to waste…

Create a crises… use the Bully Pulpit to say that you are only protecting people from that EVIL Catholic Church…

Then declare a National Emergency, as you have to protect the Pooh folk… and seize the Hospitals in question.

Gov will then HAVE to fund them, as they LOOSE money every year already… thus, a big step towards Nationalized Health care.

Romeo13 on March 10, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Never thought I’d see freedom of religious conscience being up for grabs in America.

Banana republics and third world hell holes, sure.

But America?

Sad.

jeff_from_mpls on March 10, 2009 at 12:48 PM

How about making potential patients provide a certified copy of their Baptismal Certificate to receive treatment?

coldwarrior on March 10, 2009 at 12:29 PM

Works for me

But anyway, if the church did this, you’re asking for democrats to insist the state must fill that void, and must tax more to do it. A public health disaster (as it would indeed be in the poorest areas) would be avoided by simply raising taxes and providing the service. It basically gives them a reason to encroach on health care, which is something most people here dont want to see.

ernesto on March 10, 2009 at 12:49 PM

I agree this is bad. It will effect other religious groups that are way more effective and cost productive than any government can be in therms of helping the community.

But don’t worry. Starting off with the use of Concordats Rome will eventually resolve this issue for herself.

shick on March 10, 2009 at 12:49 PM

Cover of Rand’s book is on this thread. And Ed is claiming that religion should be of such a high priority that it holds dominion over a hospitals ability to provide healthcare. It’s exactly the kind of thing Rand warned against. One wonders if he’s read her work…

DeathToMediaHacks

Yes, Rand was against religion and against Catholicism in particular. That is not the question at all in this case.

She stood firmly for a person’s right to do with their property as they please. If the church closes the hospital that they own that is their right. Can you really be that dumb? Sorry, that was a rhetorical question, your stupidity is quiet evident within each and every one of your comments.

crashland on March 10, 2009 at 12:49 PM

I am sure there are some towns where there is only one major hospital and where that hospital is a Catholic one.
DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:37 PM

I am sure there (in fact I know as my wife is from one) there are towns which have no hospital at all, much less a clinic.

Bishop on March 10, 2009 at 12:49 PM

I would much rather see the Church simply defy the government, remain open, and continue to refuse abortions. Let’s see how the public reacts when the Obama Health Police show up at the doors of the hospitals with guns blazing.

rockmom on March 10, 2009 at 12:36 PM

Exactly. This is the only smart move imo.

Itchee Dryback on March 10, 2009 at 12:49 PM

Thus, if Rand were presented with a private, profitable, hospital that refused to produce because of the dictates of a higher body, i.e. Catholic dogma, she would dissaprove. This isn’t that hard to understand.

DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:43 PM

Hacks, there are depths to your ignorance that you haven’t even begun to plumb yet.

So Rand would approve of govt forcing a business to stay open because she didn’t think that religion should force charity.

And to believe you actually accuse other of intellectual dishonesty.

MarkTheGreat on March 10, 2009 at 12:50 PM

You’ve now written this (or something similar) twice and yet provided no proof. Give me a relevant passage from Atlas Shrugged or Fountainhead or any other work of hers and I’ll turn to it; they’re sitting right beside me. I’m willing to believe you if you’ll show me where she said this.

LastRick on March 10, 2009 at 12:47 PM

Look up the thread, I provided a quote from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:50 PM

You people do realize that Rand wrote more than just Atlas Shrugged (which I have no read) Capitalism the Unknown Ideal though.

DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:48 PM

INC on March 10, 2009 at 12:50 PM

Jazz Shaw:
Soooo… Separation of Church and State when it’s convenient. Riiight …

eforhan on March 10, 2009 at 12:50 PM

BTW, religions do not force people to be charitable.

You quite clearly do not understand the difference between persuasion and force.

Then again, your a marxist, so that is understandable.

MarkTheGreat on March 10, 2009 at 12:51 PM

I told you – Hack hasn’t read Atlas Shrugged. He’s relying on a Wikipedia entry for his “understanding” of Rand’s philosophy.

Good Lt on March 10, 2009 at 12:51 PM

Thus, if Rand were presented with a private, profitable, hospital that refused to produce because of the dictates of a higher body, i.e. Catholic dogma, she would dissaprove. This isn’t that hard to understand.

DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:43 PM

Nope, its a PRIVATE Comapany… and she was all about folks making their own decisions…

If the choice is a Private Company or Church (which are both voluntary choices to belong to), or a coercivie Government? She’d take the smaller private groups every time…

As would I…

Romeo13 on March 10, 2009 at 12:51 PM

But anyway, if the church did this, you’re asking for democrats to insist the state must fill that void, and must tax more to do it.

Now you’re catching on.

Bishop on March 10, 2009 at 12:51 PM

DeathToMediaHacks“YouPeople”

/No You People Can’t!

Christien on March 10, 2009 at 12:52 PM

Romeo13 on March 10, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Yes. They either force the Catholic Church to buckle on abortion or they create a pretext to seize their hospitals.

Hospitals today, schools tomorrow.

zmdavid on March 10, 2009 at 12:53 PM

I’ll conceede that Rand would approve of any private hospital closing for any reason, per her philosophy but y’all should conceede that per her philosphy she’d look at this reason for closure with scorn and ridicule. And who knows, if presented with the present day situation there’s an argument she’d side with Jazz Shaw just as well. I just find it particularly ironic that Ed chose to use the cover of one of her works to make an argument about the importance of letting Catholic Dogma control your every action.

DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:53 PM

According to Hacks, since Rand believed that Catholics did not believe in individual rights, it is therefore legitimate to make slaves of Catholics.

And to think he accuses others of intellectual incoherence.

MarkTheGreat on March 10, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Thus, if Rand were presented with a private, profitable, hospital that refused to produce because of the dictates of a higher body, i.e. Catholic dogma, she would dissaprove.
DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:43 PM

NO. Rand would say that a person’s labor is their own to use or withhold as they see fit. What you, Rand, Ed or the government think of that decision is entirely irrelevant. We are not slaves we can not be forced to do a job we do not want to do.

DamnCat on March 10, 2009 at 12:53 PM

LastRick on March 10, 2009 at 12:47 PM

Pwn hard, pwn often.

Bishop on March 10, 2009 at 12:53 PM

My friend Jazz Shaw has an, er, interesting take on my post regarding FOCA and Catholic hospitals.

Oh goodie, a piece from The Moderate (but reliably liberal) Voice. As for interesting, you mean outwardly fascist, right?

doubleplusundead on March 10, 2009 at 12:54 PM

I would much rather see the Church simply defy the government, remain open, and continue to refuse abortions. Let’s see how the public reacts when the Obama Health Police show up at the doors of the hospitals with guns blazing.

rockmom on March 10, 2009 at 12:36 PM

They didn’t care when Janet Reno’s jackboots crashed into Elian Gonzalez’ home and extracted him at gunpoint.

I guarantee you they’d applaud government operatives forcing abortions at gunpoint. I guess it would have to be considered newsworthy, which isn’t a safe bet anymore.

We’re a banana republic.

jeff_from_mpls on March 10, 2009 at 12:54 PM

So it occurs to me that a large part of the reason that Obama and the Democrats won in 2008 is that they pinned the mortgage meltdown on Bush and the 2006 Congress which many (most?) Obama voters thought was run by the Republicans.

Come the 2010 election, presuming Obama does not reverse course, I don’t think the Democrats will continue to be able to blame the Republicans for their screwups, like they did in 2008.

Could we see the public actually wake up now that Obama is destroying their savings and spending their grandchildren’s money?

18-1 on March 10, 2009 at 12:54 PM

And just how does the Catholic church coerce anyone?

MarkTheGreat on March 10, 2009 at 12:54 PM

As an objectivist in most cases, I have no doubt that Ms. Rand would support Catholic churches in this matter. It is not the faith that is being pushed here or there in this topic, It is the voluntarily based provision of health care she would support. After all, what we decide as individuals to do is what is most important in the giving of charity, Rand believed you have no right to tell me who I give my money or charity to. She would find any government coercion or intrusion anathema to her philosophy.

MNDavenotPC on March 10, 2009 at 12:55 PM

I just find it particularly ironic that Ed chose to use the cover of one of her works to make an argument about the importance of letting Catholic Dogma control your every action.

You admitted you haven’t even read the work he chose (and there’s a reason he chose it). And it shows.

Look up the first rule of holes, please.

Good Lt on March 10, 2009 at 12:55 PM

Look up the thread, I provided a quote from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:50 PM

Your quote had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

MarkTheGreat on March 10, 2009 at 12:55 PM

For Jazz’s argument to work we must substitute one word. Change Catholic to Muslim and try to make the argument. If it was the Religion of Pieces who was threathening such a move government would be bending over backward to appease them and give in to their demands.

Just A Grunt on March 10, 2009 at 12:55 PM

I guarantee you they’d applaud government operatives forcing abortions at gunpoint. I guess it would have to be considered newsworthy, which isn’t a safe bet anymore.

Rand would certainly have supported that.

/Hack off

Good Lt on March 10, 2009 at 12:56 PM

Hospitals today, schools tomorrow.
zmdavid on March 10, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Eventually private industry too.

They could show up at my shop and declare that since vehicles and farm equipment are necessary for commerce, my shop WILL stay open and WILL continue to service said vehicles.

Bishop on March 10, 2009 at 12:57 PM

rush just said that if we are in an economic war than the War is lost.

unseen on March 10, 2009 at 12:57 PM

I have no doubt that Ms. Rand would support Catholic churches in this matter. It is not the faith that is being pushed here or there in this topic, It is the voluntarily based provision of health care she would support.

DING DING DING

Pay attention, Hack.

Good Lt on March 10, 2009 at 12:57 PM

The Catholic church operates her hospitals based on the theological mandate to serve the poor and needy, but if the government attempts to force or coerce them into performing abortions (which Catholic theology teaches is murder) they have every right to close.

What if the government required maternity wards to perform euthanasia on infants born with “certain defects”? Would anyone question the hospital closing down rather than killing the babies? If your faith says the unborn child is indeed a human being worthy of protection who in their right mind could do anything other than resist a law stating you must kill that human being with every fiber of your being?

darcee on March 10, 2009 at 12:57 PM

As the State continues to increase regulation and taxation, more private concerns will find it impossible and/or not worthwhile to continue to do whatever it is they do.

Then, when this occurs with something especially critical such as the operation of hospitals, the next step is for the State to coerce the private entity to continue operating on the State’s terms.

This thing with the Catholic hospitals is a chilling example of how the progressive agenda will eventually destroy liberty if not stopped.

forest on March 10, 2009 at 12:59 PM

DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:53 PM

The overarching theme of Atlas Shrtugged – indeed, the whole point of the title – is that people will ultimately “shrug” and throw off government, society, or any other collective force that becomes oppressive of individual initiative AND conscience. Of course, any religion can be such a coercive and oppressive force. But so can the state be oppressive AGAINST the conscience of a religious community, and so that community will at some point “shrug” and throw off the oppressor.

Ed speaks of the Catholic Church “shrugging” against FOCA in a spectacular way that would cause harm to many people. That’s why the book cover is an appropriate illustration.

rockmom on March 10, 2009 at 12:59 PM

As the State continues to increase regulation and taxation, more private concerns will find it impossible and/or not worthwhile to continue to do whatever it is they do.

Then, when this occurs with something especially critical such as the operation of hospitals, the next step is for the State to coerce the private entity to continue operating on the State’s terms.

Step three?

Atlas shrugs.

Good Lt on March 10, 2009 at 1:00 PM

It’s rather fun to watch and see how far each side is willing to go in this mess.

Atlas hasn’t shrugged just yet, but is definitely stirring.

Neo on March 10, 2009 at 1:01 PM

I’ll conceede that Rand would approve of any private hospital closing for any reason, per her philosophy but y’all should conceede that per her philosphy she’d look at this reason for closure with scorn and ridicule. And who knows, if presented with the present day situation there’s an argument she’d side with Jazz Shaw just as well. I just find it particularly ironic that Ed chose to use the cover of one of her works to make an argument about the importance of letting Catholic Dogma control your every action.

DeathToMediaHacks on March 10, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Two points.
Whether or not Rand would look with derision on the reasons for this, I do not know Rand’s position abortion, your contention that she would disagree with everything the Catholic church did, merely because they are the Catholic church is intellectually incoherent.

I’m glad you finally agree that Rand would not disagree with a private entity closing their business. Since this completely refutes your original point, this is quite an admission on your part.

MarkTheGreat on March 10, 2009 at 1:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3