The Catholic Church and HealthCare.... What if the Bishops Aren't Bluffing?

[Cecilie1200]

As long as hospitals remain open the communities, it won't matter. Systems will come in and buy out the faith based hospitals if they wish to get out of the healthcare game. These takeovers happen everyday in the USA.

Yea, at higher costs..... and less efficiency.... but no doubt that is fine.... as long as it doesn't effect you - it's just the poor and vulnerable that will be most impacted.... who cares about them, right?

Higher costs and less efficient are false presumptions. I care for those who do not have access to quality care which is why I support a national system. Healthcare will remain in the community whether the bishop wants it to or not - seems to me you should be angry with church leadership threatening the well being of the poor and vulnerable.

Why is it that the left "caring for others" always takes the form of "That's why I'm going to barge in and reorder your life to suit me, regardless of what you want, because I know better"? Why can't leftists care about people without treating them like retarded five-year-olds? Maybe those people don't WANT your government-run healthcare. Maybe they LIKE getting their healthcare from an institution that shares their religious values. Why don't you care about THAT? Because you've personally decided that their religious values are stupid and meaningless, and therefore they should just get over it?

Leftists "care" so much for other people - and you can always tell the other people by the hunted expression on their faces.

 

[Ravi]

Leftists "care" so much for other people - and you can always tell the other people by the hunted expression on their faces.

I always thought those with the hunted expression on their faces were your victims.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Higher costs and less efficient are false presumptions. I care for those who do not have access to quality care which is why I support a national system. Healthcare will remain in the community whether the bishop wants it to or not - seems to me you should be angry with church leadership threatening the well being of the poor and vulnerable.

Exactly. The hypocrisy on this subject is beyond belief.

No hypocrisy from the Church... exactly the opposite. It will not compromise its doctrine for any Administration - regardless of political ideology.

You can't really blame people for rejecting slavery on the grounds that other people will have to do without if they aren't willing to put on the chains and work.

Blame the people interfering with the Catholic Church, not the Catholic Church for refusing to tolerate the interference.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So Catholics are major recipients of tax dollars?

Yep. From what I understand, they get over 60% of their funding from tax dollars.

I know the Seventh Day Adventists will happily step in and take over "charity" hospitals. After all, medicare or medicaid pays for the "charity" cases.

Actually, the Seventh Dad Adventists are one of the 2,500 faiths that are supporting the Catholic Church on this. So, I wouldn't be so certain of their 'happily' if I were you.

The Seventh-Day Adventists don't want to be subordinated to the government any more than the Catholics do. No church with halfway-intelligent leadership does.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We own them. You want 'em, you pay for 'em. Or is seizing property another acceptable price now?

Also, they'll need to make sure they can afford it. Our Hospitals don't 'make money', quite the opposite.... they cost the Church serious amounts of cash.... as you would know if you read the damned article.

Seems to me, the left just hates the fact that religions do so much good for society.

Your question: what if the bishops aren't bluffing?

My answer: the sda would fill the void.

Not take them or seize them. Happily fill the void.

You are obviously unhinged on the subject.

I don't see the adventists ever taking the place of the Catholic church, lol. They are their own animal but that's just not happening. I don't see the Catholic church going away.....

Completely aside from how unlikely it is that the SDA is going to put up with government interference any more than any other intelligent, self-respecting church would, they're not anything like as big or as wealthy as the Catholic Church. To put it simply, they don't have the ability to "fill the void".

 

[Cecilie1200]

California Girl please site which hospitals are owned by the church, or at least a state in which they are. Having the pleasure of overseeing several acquisitions and dispositions of Catholic hospitals, I am unaware of funds transferred to the church as result.

Just how much spoon feeding do you need? There's a link to the CHA (Catholic Health Association) in the damned link I provided in the OP. The CHA provides a directory, by state, of it's facilities.

Damn, Kiki, did no one ever teach you to read?

Madame, the link state "operates" and "runs" not owns as in real assets.

Your attempts to personally insult me in an effort to deflect are childish.

Riiiight. The Catholic Church is "operating" and "running" hospitals owned by someone else.

Be more of a tool, why don't you?

 

[Cecilie1200]

My impression from the bishops is that there will be no acquisitions. They will just shut their doors on hospitals (and schools). And, I don't think they are bluffing.

It's not as if the Church will go broke.

I can see them putting up a 'Catholics only' sign. I would hate that. It's just as offensive to our faith as birth control. Our care facilities are set up specifically to follow the teachings of Christ. There is nothing in His teachings that tell us we should only treat our own. That, in itself, is against our religious liberty.

And I personally, although I'm a Protestant, prefer to get my healthcare at a Catholic hospital, where I know my religious values and beliefs will be respected, rather than ignored in favor of someone else's idea of what's "best" for me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Madame, the link state "operates" and "runs" not owns as in real assets.

Your attempts to personally insult me in an effort to deflect are childish.

Well, email them and ask. I'm not your personal wiki. Stop being so fucking lazy. If you want information.... ask them.

You made a claim. I am asking you to support it. But you can't, obviously. And your need to resort to profanity is amusing.

Don't be such an obtuse tool.

You really, REALLY need an example of a Catholic-owned hospital to combat your pathetic little spin of "they're just operated and run, not owned"? Fine. I will oblige by proving what a disingenuous troll you are.

The Carondelet Health Network of southern Arizona owns and operates St. Mary's Hospital in Tucson, St. Joseph's Hospital in Tucson, the Cerelle Center for Mammography and Carondelet Imaging Services Central in Tucson, Holy Cross Hospital in Nogales, the Medical Mall of Green Valley and Carondelet Medical Group offices throughout southern Arizona. Carondelet Health Network, in turn, was founded by and continues to be owned by the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet, an order of Catholic nuns.

Of course, simple logic - which apparently escapes you - would tell you that the Catholic Church is not an administration-for-hire company that one brings in to run someone else's hospital, school, or what-have-you. If they're "operating" and "running" a hospital, it's because they own it. Duhhh.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, email them and ask. I'm not your personal wiki. Stop being so fucking lazy. If you want information.... ask them.

You made a claim. I am asking you to support it. But you can't, obviously. And your need to resort to profanity is amusing.

If I understand what you are asking, you want to know is the Catholic hospitals actually own the real estate upon which their hospital is.

I may be mistaken, but that is my understanding of your question. Please correct me if wrong.

So, I'm wondering what significance that has to much of anything. If they own the property, they own it. If they lease the real estate, I would imagine it is a long-term lease. And, if they lease the property, as long as they pay their lease, I doubt the landlord is going to care what they heck they do on that property, as long as it is not illegal or damaging to the property.

So, bottom line, why is that important information to know in this case?

And, of course, if I lease the property in which I run my business, do I own the business itself, or does the landlord from whom I lease?

That damned logic always trips liberals up.

 

[Ravi]

Yep. From what I understand, they get over 60% of their funding from tax dollars.

I know the Seventh Day Adventists will happily step in and take over "charity" hospitals. After all, medicare or medicaid pays for the "charity" cases.

Actually, the Seventh Dad Adventists are one of the 2,500 faiths that are supporting the Catholic Church on this. So, I wouldn't be so certain of their 'happily' if I were you.

The Seventh-Day Adventists don't want to be subordinated to the government any more than the Catholics do. No church with halfway-intelligent leadership does.

They aren't opposed to birth control so you have no point.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You made a claim. I am asking you to support it. But you can't, obviously. And your need to resort to profanity is amusing.

No, I already know.... because I make it my business to know. We own a lot of our facilities.... not all. Ain't no one gonna be taking our property away from us.

If you don't like profanity.... try not to be so fucking stupid.

California Girl the premise of your OP is that if the bishops wanted to no longer play nice in the sandbox than can just pack up their surgical toys and CSCAN machines and tongue depressors and hit the highway thus causing a healthcare crisis in the communities served.

The assets, buildings and land are for the most part, not the church's holdings. Thus the church may vacate the premises, lock the door and take the sign off the entry but the hospital would be positioned for market.

P.S. - I didn't say I didn't like swearing, I said I find your need to resort to it amusing. Any logical mind would know understand the difference.

Actually, in most cases, the Church DOES own the buildings and land, but that really makes no difference. Do you really think it's that cheap and easy for someone to move in and take over running a hospital? Hell, all you need is the buildings, and you're good? Be serious here, Chuckles. If it was that easy, those other people would ALREADY have a hospital in the area.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If I understand what you are asking, you want to know is the Catholic hospitals actually own the real estate upon which their hospital is.

I may be mistaken, but that is my understanding of your question. Please correct me if wrong.

So, I'm wondering what significance that has to much of anything. If they own the property, they own it. If they lease the real estate, I would imagine it is a long-term lease. And, if they lease the property, as long as they pay their lease, I doubt the landlord is going to care what they heck they do on that property, as long as it is not illegal or damaging to the property.

So, bottom line, why is that important information to know in this case?

If the Catholics shut down the hospital. Will it really shut down or just be ran by someone else?

Who would run it?

It takes thousands to run a hospital. And how could anyone just walk in and set up shop in a building they don't own or lease?

Even if they COULD buy or lease the building, there's a hell of a lot more expense and hassle to running a hospital than just the building.

 

[Cecilie1200]

My impression (and I could be wrong) is that they will shut their doors. They seem quite serious about this, and I can't blame them. As most know, I am not a Catholic (and I am not a Christian, just a theist), but, in this case, the Church has a better grasp of the US Constitution than the POTUS. From a constitutional standpoint, I agree with the Church that the POTUS is wrong. And the Church has the ability and means to make this point, not just with the hospitals.

So they will ignore their Christian mandate to help their fellow "man"?
Are they a business or a religion?

This whole thing seems to me like a "cut off your nose to spite your face" kind of thing.

If they were a business, they wouldn't be hung up on breaching their doctrine. Twit.

We cannot break our faith for any man... even if that man happens to be a President. We don't answer to the President. We answer to God. God outranks your President.

Leftists have never understood that Christianity is primarily about love for and service of God, and loving and serving your fellow man is an ancillary offshoot of that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Here's is an interesting article from the Dayton Daily News from Feb. 11 of this year:

UD to re-evaluate contraception plan

It seems when a light exposes an issue it becomes uncomfortable, so now at least one Archbishop feels a need to refer the matter to, "Our moral theologians" and at the Catholic University of Dayton, "officials said Friday they are re-evaluating the university’s medical plan, which covers birth control pills and procedures including vasectomies and tubal ligations, as controversy continues to boil over whether a federal health care edict abridges religious freedom".

So, in the name of religious freedom the right of women and men to chose may be abridged, all because the Republican Party is solely focused on winning in November.

Wrong

go to another hospital. or pay out of pocket.

Why do leftists always think "I have the right to do this" means "I have the right to make you help me do this"?

 

[Cecilie1200]

the church was willing to compromise so long as they thought they'd get special treatment.

That's what happens when you compromise principles. They're lucky God didn't send a plague.

Mostly, God doesn't HAVE to send plagues and other punishments. He just has to wait for the consequences of our own bad choices to come back and bite us in the ass.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Even if I am wrong and they don't just padlock their doors, there are two pieces of information that you should consider:

1. Most of the Catholic hospitals are in areas where others (private investors, other not-for-profit healthcare systems, etc.) will not be interested in, and;

2. If the other operator systems do happen to be interested in the site, they will provide lower quality healthcare for higher costs (according to the data I posted above).

And this is the 'crisis' portion. Not because the hospitals don't want to provide care, but it is because their resources are stretched.

So, let's make it worse by driving the Catholics - the highest quality for the lowest cost - out.

Obama is playing brinkmanship with the Church - and the Church is playing back. From my standpoint, it's an important fight as it pertains to the Constitution. Should the collateral damage be to so many patients who will be out of available healthcare during any transition time that will arise, IF there is a transition time? And, should healthcare costs go up because of this power grab?

I just have to shake my head about the POTUS. And, it's ONLY at the POTUS, because healthcare is not the highest priority of the Church, it's the soul. And, I don't see them budging on that one at all.

Well, I hate to break it to liberals, but Christians - of all stripes - simply don't see death as the ultimate evil, since we all believe that our souls continue on afterward in some form or another. So while we believe it is incumbent upon us as Christians to help and comfort others in this life, we don't believe the extension of this life is the highest possible good, trumping any and all other concerns.

Liberals might want to take a look at how many Catholics saints became saints by martyring themselves rather than renounce their faith, and take some sort of lesson about Christian priorities from that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Two thumbs - if the church leaves it is not their show to run.

California Girl - you are ignoring that business occurs, cities overt crisis' and hospitals are bought and sold and change from holding to operating companies everyday in the USA.

I leave my house, it's still my house.

The church closes a hospital, someone will have to buy it. The church is under no obligation to sell, since they will be confident that obama will be forced to keep his word.

Again..the church does not own the physical entity nor the contents within, most are built on bond financing under a complex debt model.

Again, the Church DOES own many, if not most, of the buildings in question. And, again, there's a lot more to a hospital than a building.

As an example, the Carondelet Health Network in my area that I referenced in an earlier post. St. Mary's Hospital on the west side of Tucson serves a very large - and largely poor - Hispanic population in that part of town. The Catholic Church DOES own that entire facility, as well as the satellite medical offices around it. And I can tell you right now that even if they didn't, your breezy assumption that the local governments could just step right in and replace them is horseshit. The City of Tucson and Pima County are having to cut back on the services they already offer, and the State of Arizona is moving toward more austerity as well. If the Catholic Church decided to pull out of this area, the poor Hispanics on the west side are basically screwed. But what do you care, right? You're busy "caring" about people's "right" to demand everyone else comply with their personal whims.

 

[Cecilie1200]

caritas sold their hospitals around here and there was no interruption of service at all.

So naturally, that'll be the case in every place and with every Catholic hospital, right?

Gotta love that anecdotal "evidence".

 

[Luddly Neddite]

No hypocrisy from the Church... exactly the opposite. It will not compromise its doctrine for any Administration - regardless of political ideology.

What a crock.

This is the same church who hides criminal priests so they can continue to commit the same crime without fear of punishment, same church that is very willing to throw its " ideology" when it comes to paying taxes on the land they use. And, where is their "ideology" when it comes to their own elderly nuns? The priests are taken care of but nuns often have no choice but to go back to their families when they're too old to work for the patriarchal church.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is not private property to be open and closed at will. Two thumbs said if he leaves his house, it is still his house. The same is not true for (again most) hospitals...think of it as a probate situation with a public heatlhcare need (looming crisis) which would propel the city into action to immediately find an operator of the building.

Ah. Thanks for explaining that. Do you have any data about the percentage of Catholic hospitals that have such a situation with the site? That might be interesting data to have.

Secondly, (a) in the situations you describe, the new operator will obviously not be Catholic, and the data shows that the healthcare provided will be of lower quality and higher price. That's bad. And, (b) in the transition period, if there is one, local folks will be out of healthcare, urgent and emergency, for a significant time. That's bad.

Agreed that quality of care during transition and post will suffer, however maybe this is the tipping point needed for the USA to recognize that healthcare needs a significant overhaul in how it operates. On the other hand, lots of overtime for union employees should a operating acquisitions occur.

Could be an interesting prospect for academic institutions/teaching hospitals such as university owned and operated - might be an opporutunity to influence legislation requirements regarding staff ratios.

ETA: am reaching into the archives for published public documentation

I love it. "Maybe what we need is for people to suffer more, so they'll give us what we want."

Ahh, liberal caring. Warms the cockles of the heart.