WASHINGTON, March 29 /Christian Wire Service/ — The National Clergy Council, representing conservative church leaders from Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox and Protestant traditions, today applauds the Reverend Jesse Jackson for his visit to Terri Schiavo’s hospice where she is dying from starvation and dehydration. In comments to the media, Rev. Jackson said at the scene that Mrs. Schiavo is dying of “starvation and dehydration and it is unnecessary,” “cruel” and “immoral.”
The Reverend Rob Schenck said about Rev. Jackson’s visit and remarks, “There is nothing for Jesse Jackson to gain here except respect for having done the right thing. This is a rare expression of moral courage from a partisan and we applaud him heartily for it. We pray that it is taken seriously and acted upon urgently by all those with the power to save Terri’s life.”
Rev. Schenck made his comments in Pittsburgh, PA, where he is recovering from brain surgery and has made calls to congressional leaders pleading with them to intervene at this late hour.
“The Reverend Rob Schenck said about Rev. Jackson?s visit and remarks, ?There is nothing for Jesse Jackson to gain here except respect for having done the right thing. This is a rare expression of moral courage from a partisan and we applaud him heartily for it. We pray that it is taken seriously and acted upon urgently by all those with the power to save Terri?s life.?
That’s not exactly true. Jesse Jackson is one of the precious few Democrats that is intelligent enough to understand this issue. In comments last night, Jackson decried Terri’s death, but then turned around and linked it to increased funding to ensure that long-term healthcare was available for all Americans, so that no one would ever have to face this outcome.
Joe Scarborough was forced to agree with him. I think Jackson is sincere in his regard for Terri’s life, but I also think that he is astute enough to advance his agenda through this crisis. It’s a win-win for a black preacher, after all. He gets to align with all the other moral leaders in the world, including the pope, and at the same time, he gets to press forward on his agenda to nationalize health care.
It’s a great move on his part. If only more Democrats would understand that they could get a whole lot more traction out of defending life than defending Judge Greer, then we could revolutionize the debate in this country.
I don’t care what Jesse Jackson’s motives are in meeting with the Schindlers in pleading for Terri’s life. I just wish that more persons of note would speak up for Terri and her family. We have an innocent woman dying of starvation, if she was a whale or a dog starving, this country would be in an uproar about this matter. I have sent emails to jeb bush and to george w. bush. Both of these persons could use whatever executive privilege they possess to rescue Terri. I don’t know the Schindlers, but it is so painful to watch this terrible life and death crisis and to know that the people that could help, choose not to do so.
Rosanne,
I agree. I don’t care what his motives are, I am glad that he is doing it. I merely pointed out the political considerations to underscore that I am doubly mystified why so many Democrats are on the other side of this issue. Even from a purely cynical standpoint, there is so much to gain for them by backing life, just as Jackson has done and so has Ralph Nader and Joseph Lieberman.
For so many politicians to hold on to an almost pathological desire to see Terri die just doesn’t make sense, either morally or practically.
Glen, Arianna Huffington (a Democrat) weighed in on this topic today.
Democrats clueless on moral values.
Father, I’m sorry, but I don’t think Huffington’s 4 paragraphs on this issue make the point you think.
Huffington writes,
“Democrats fail to grasp that when it comes to the party’s core issues, they are on the same side as the majority of Americans.” And remember the polls show that a majority of Americans support dehydrating and starving Terri to death (I know they are push polls, but regardless, this is what Huffington is referring to here).
Huffington goes on, “Instead of allowing themselves to be cowed by the fear of looking as if they’re coming down on the immoral side of the values debate, Democrats need to demand that the President cut short his next vacation to address the moral disgrace of 45 million people with no health insurance and 36 million people living in poverty – and, in doing so, reclaim the moral high ground.”
For Huffington this is not about respecting the Right to Life. She says so in the first line, “This is not about Terri Schiavo.” For Huffington this case is about lack of health insurance in America. Wesley J. Smith makes eminently clear in his book Culture of Death that should single payer health insurance become the law of the land in America, rationing will be the immediate result and we will see Terri Schiavo to the nth degree in hospitals, nursing homes and hospices. Smith makes clear that Bill Lamm, former governer of Colorado, a supporter of single payer health insurance, supports rationing of medical care to ensure the maintenance of the healthy and the removal of the sick, elderly, infirm and severely handicapped.
Daniel writes: “Wesley J. Smith makes eminently clear in his book Culture of Death that should single payer health insurance become the law of the land in America, rationing will be the immediate result and we will see Terri Schiavo to the nth degree in hospitals, nursing homes and hospices. Smith makes clear that Bill Lamm, former governer of Colorado, a supporter of single payer health insurance, supports rationing of medical care to ensure the maintenance of the healthy and the removal of the sick, elderly, infirm and severely handicapped.”
We already practice healthcare rationing through who is and is not insured. When people don’t have health insurance they delay seeing doctors and end up being sicker when they finally present, often in the ER, which is the most expensive place to get treatment. At that point they may require very extensive treatment — stroke due to high blood pressure vs. inexpensive blood pressure medicine, for example. In addition people tend to self-ration their medications when they can’t afford all that they need — taking one pill a day instead of the three pills prescribed, for example.
So let’s please put to rest the idea that we don’t ration health care. We already do. The question is how it gets rationed.
And it’s not an abstract issue:
“More than 105,000 Americans age 50 to 64 may die prematurely in the next eight years because they lack health insurance, according to the first study to examine the link between insurance and death among pre-retirees, who face increasing health risks at the same time employers are cutting benefits. . . . If lack of health insurance were a disease, it would be the third leading cause of death among this age group, behind heart disease and cancer, the study found.”
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2004/07/07/
uninsured_age_50_64_face_higher_death_risk/
Concerning single payor plans — if you love needless complexity, bureaucracy, and spending huge amounts of money on bureaucratic paper-shuffling, then the current system is great. The current system employs hundreds of thousands of people in patient accounts departments in hospitals across the country. Mirroring that are hundreds of thousands of bean counters employed by countless insurance companies across the country. Helping all the patient accounts people talk to all the bean counters are billions of dollars of computer systems transmitting millions of reimbursement-related transactions every day. If you like spending a considerable piece of your healthcare dollar on non-medical bureaucracy, the the current system is great. Since I’m one of the little bureaucrats, I want to let you know that I appreciate your contributions to my well-being.
Note 5. Yes, I agree. Huffington’s essay is woefully short of any useful analysis. I just posted to buttress Glen’s point that the Democratic leadership (most but not all) is morally tone deaf.
I agree too with Wesley Smith’s point. Single payer health care would make the insurance industry more susceptible to the machinery of government, particularly the courts. Imagine a judge ruling that insurance has to pay for, say, infanticide.
We have a problem we have to resolve concerning health care, but single-payer care, or a government run health insurance program, would erode patient rights even more.
Jim, why don’t you take a break from posting here in support of the culture of death and go read Smith’s book by the same name. You’ll find that he actually agrees with you on rationing via HMOs, etc. He states that once we got away from a fee for service system we entered the realm of medical care rationing.
I should have been more clear by saying that government run single payer health insurance would immediately result in even greater rationing then we have today, instead of leaving the impression that I don’t think there is any rationing today.
Current rationing comes from a combination of cost controls established within the insurance industry and a medical professionals, influenced by the bioethics establishment, that has embraced assisted suicide, euthanasia and futile care theory and that sees the terminally ill and severely disabled as a drain on limited resources. Arguing that making health insurance “simpler” by making it single payer would eliminate rationing is just ignorant nonsense.
Your characterization of ERs is just inaccurate. The ER has become the equivalent of the “family doctor” for the uninsured. I work in hospitals throughout Southern California and I can tell you that they are not full of doctors, interns and nurses waiting for the catastrophically sick and injured. They are actually full of people who range from those with serious injuries and illnesses to those with the sniffles who don’t seem to know they can help themselves by getting a box of Niquel from Right Aid. For the uninsured the ER is the first place to go, because hospitals cannot refuse to treat someone who presents in the ER based on lack of insurance(though patients can be refused treatment by insurance companies and doctors who determine care would be futile – that’s an interesting contradiction isn’t it?).
And the simple fact that someone like you, who believes Terri Schiavo should be killed, also supports single payer health care does not give me the warm-fuzzies about that kind of insurance scheme.
Jim has a point concerning our current system. Wesley J. Smith also has valid points concerning what happens under a single payor plan.
Currently, public expenditures through Medicare, Medicaid, and other government-sponsored health care plans (both state and federal) account for almost 50% of total health care expenditures. This has created a situation that no rational observer would consider to be a free market. Rather, our current healthcare system has many features of fascism, in which public funds are used for the enrichment of a select few approved businesses.
It is, in fact, the worst of all possible worlds. Costs are artificially inflated as the result of government involvement, but the benefits derived from government intervention are extremely unevenly distributed. Poor people with no insurance can get Medicaid, which provides an acceptable level of access to health care. Working people with decent salaries working at companies with no health insurance get nothing, or almost nothing. Yet, they pay taxes to support a system from which they derive no benefit.
This current half-way system is completely untenable, but that doesn’t mean a single-payor solution is the best alternative.
A single-payor system does a good job, in most countries, of providing a basic level of care for everyone. It does lead to rationing, can contribute to pressure for increased Euthanasia, and can result in delay in adopting new technologies. Older, sicker patients simply don’t get treated for high-end problems. An additional problem arises that, legally, older and sicker patients cannot even pay for their own treatment. They are supposed to simply die. This often doesn’t happen, as money talks, even in a socialist country. In Poland, for example, the waiting list for open heart surgery is twelve months, if you qualify. (Not too old, not too sick.) If you pay a bribe under the table to the head of the department, however, anyone can qualify and the wait time is minimal. Doctors will always get paid, one way or the other.
My own personal preference would be for a return to a completely free-market approach. Yes, some people will die if they cannot find someone to foot the bill for their treatment. At the same time, however, no one will be arrested for attempting to give food and water to a loved one. The government will not be in a position to target anyone for death simply because they are too sick or too old to be bothered with.
The point to keep in mind is that no solution will ever help every single person, in every single case. The best solution is the one that has the most positive outcomes, and the least negative ones. The current health care system in the United States combines some of the worst attributes of both socialized medicine and the free market. It should be junked, in my opinion, in favor of either single-payor or the free market. Either approach brings problems and benefits, but at least we can understand what they are up front, and make a decision about them.
Huffington’s point is that Democrats should involve themselves in this issue in order to demonstrate a “consistent ethic of life.” A Consistent Ethic of life is woefully lacking in both parties as demonstrated by the indifference of some Republicans to the poor and the indifference some Democrats towards the taking of unborn life through abortions of convenience.
Of course Huffington and others would all do well to remember that quip by depression-era humorist Will Rodgers, “I don’t belong to any organized political party. I’m a Democrat.” Former Senator and Presidential candidate, Bill Bradley has a fine article in today’s NY Times contrasting the disorganized state of the Demcoratic party with the highly-organized, structured and well-planned Republican political machine.
“A Party Inverted”, http://nytimes.com/2005/03/30/opinion/30bradley.html
Dean, would you therefore allow the possibility that left-wing politicians can use the Schiavo case for political manuvering and gain, as you accuse right-wing politicians of doing? (I agree with your accusation, BTW.)
I will never understand the mind of the Left. First Dean joins with other conservatives in attacking Republicans for passing legislation that attempted to save Terri Schiavo. And then here attacks Republicans because they don’t pass legislation that, in Dean’s mind, will save the poor.
I’m sorry, but I’m just a little confused here. Are Republicans supposed to try to help or not? Or is it just the number of people that are helped? If only one cognitively disabled person is assisted that’s bad, but if thousands (or hundreds of thousands or millions, even) of people living below the federally mandated poverty line are helped then that’s good.
And you wonder why the Left is accused of caring about the masses but couldn’t care less for one single individual.
Daniel writes: “Arguing that making health insurance ‘simpler’ by making it single payer would eliminate rationing is just ignorant nonsense.”
It doesn’t eliminate rationing by any means, but it does make it possible to reduce non-value-added cost out of the system. Spend less on the reimbursement system, more on medical care.
Daniel writes: “I should have been more clear by saying that government run single payer health insurance would immediately result in even greater rationing then we have today, instead of leaving the impression that I don’t think there is any rationing today.”
I’m not sure that planned rationing is a bad thing in itself, since it would force us to make choices. Do we want to do a heart transplant, or do we want to provide prenatal care for 1,000 women? Maybe we can do both, but if not it forces us to prioritize.
Daniel: “Current rationing comes from a combination of cost controls established within the insurance industry and a medical professionals, influenced by the bioethics establishment, that has embraced assisted suicide, euthanasia and futile care theory and that sees the terminally ill and severely disabled as a drain on limited resources.”
Where I work I haven’t seen any evidence that we look at certain individuals as drains on the system. Maybe that happens but I haven’t seen it. Obviously, a very sick person can require tremendous resources, and at some point it’s appropriate to ask if a legitimate medical goal is being pursued. That’s not the murder of the disabled; that’s the reality of limited resources. What is happening is that insurance companies are increasingly in effect less willing to fund the care for uncompensated patients. At the same time federal and state programs are clamping down on reimbursement rates. Hospitals have to respond to the financial realities. A closed hospital helps no one.
Daniel: “Your characterization of ERs is just inaccurate. The ER has become the equivalent of the ‘family doctor’ for the uninsured. I work in hospitals throughout Southern California and I can tell you that they are not full of doctors, interns and nurses waiting for the catastrophically sick and injured.”
What I’m saying is that when people delay or defer medical treatment for financial reasons — often related to lack of health insurance — their conditions deteriorate and they end up presenting in a worse state and requiring perhaps much more expensive care. An ER visit that doesn’t end up in hospitalization can still easily run into the hundreds or low thousands of dollars once all the ancillaries are added in. Even that is out of reach for many people.
Daniel: “And the simple fact that someone like you, who believes Terri Schiavo should be killed, also supports single payer health care does not give me the warm-fuzzies about that kind of insurance scheme.”
Ah, I was waiting for the obligatory ad hominem comment. Well, cool. Stay with the current system then.
Note 12. Daniel: And the simple fact that someone like you, who believes Terri Schiavo should be killed, also supports single payer health care does not give me the warm-fuzzies about that kind of insurance scheme.
Jim: Ah, I was waiting for the obligatory ad hominem comment. Well, cool. Stay with the current system then.
—
What’s wrong with Daniel’s point?
I wouldn’t turn over health care policy to people who see no moral problem with starving Terri Schiavo to death. I wouldn’t even turn it over to people who believe in starving pet dogs to death. Would you?
Fr. Hans writes: “What’s wrong with Daniel’s point? I would not turn over health care policy decisions to people who see no moral problem with starving Terri Schiavo to death. I wouldn’t even turn it over to anyone who believes in starving their pet dog to death, would you?”
I’m not making a policy decision. I’m making various observations on the current healthcare system, focusing on elements of the system — bureaucracy related to reimbursement — that adds, in my opinion, a lot of unnecessary cost. These observations are based on over 20 years of employment at a hospital including two years as an account analyst in patient accounts and 8 years in the hospital finance office as a data and program analyst. If Daniel wants to engage me on the issues — for example, if he has a better idea of how to reduce cost through a multipayor rather than single payor system, then he should mention it.
By the way, I’m not in favor of “starving” Terri Schiavo per se. It’s not like I walked up to her on the street and said “hey lady, some day I hope I can starve you.”
My belief that artificial nutrition should be withdrawn is based on what I believe are the facts of the case: first and most important, that withdrawing treatment would have been her desire, and second and less important, that she in fact is in a PVS with no hope of recovery. The main prejudice that I bring to this case is belief that the whole point of the case is doing what Terri Schiavo would have wanted, as best we can determine that.
By the way, you said earlier “I’m surprised too that you haven’t moderated your acceptance of the Schiavo decision given the doubt that surrounds the case.”
In my observation, much of what is supposed to constitute “doubt” is itself very doubtable. There are a lot of sincere emotions surrounding this case. But we’re not always well-served by emotion. I literally have spent hours reading and re-reading the documents related to this case. I’ve spent hours reading the pro-Schindler web sites, which are as the sand of the sea in multitude. I’ve obviously spent hours reading this blog and writing responses. The bottom line for me, all things considered, is that the outcome of the case is what it should be. And it’s a sad outcome of a very sad case. The right ending is not always happy. I wish it were otherwise. The phrase “rest in peace” is particularly meaningful.
I’ve just heard it reported that Terri Schiavo is dead.
Lord have Mercy.
“The worst thing is not the sorrow or the loss or the heartbreak. Worse is to be encountered by death and not to be changed by the encounter.”
Father Richard John Neuhaus
May this innocent young woman, who suffered with her Lord through the weeks commemorating his Passion and Resurrection in her church, be granted rest, peace, forgiveness of sins, and salvation by our merciful God.
May her suffering family receive the consolation of the promise of eternal life through Christ.
May those who did her to death be converted in their hearts by the Holy Spirit, the Comforter and Spirit of Truth.
As it turned out, Graham was the one who issued the invitation to the Clintons, whom he referred to as “wonderful friends” and “a great couple.”
—– Original Message —–
From: McGinn, Sam
To: rickmeyers43@hotmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 7:58 PM
Subject: Statement from Franklin Graham
Dear Rick,
Thank you for contacting us to express your concerns. Franklin Graham has issued the following statement, addressing comments made by his father, Dr. Billy Graham, at his recent crusade:
Recently at my father’s New York Crusade, he made comments in jest concerning the Clintons, which may have been misunderstood. His comments indicated that President Clinton could have been an evangelist and his wife, Senator Clinton, could run the country. My father, of course, was joking. President Clinton has the charisma, personality, and communication skills, but an evangelist has to have the call of God, which President Clinton obviously does not have, and my father understands that. For a long time, my father has refrained from endorsing political candidates and he certainly did not intend for his comments to be an endorsement for Senator Hillary Clinton. While his political views, as well as mine, are quite different than the Clintons, they remain good friends.
We hope that you will join us in thanking God for the tremendous results from the New York Crusade as thousands of lives were touched and changed for eternity. We would appreciate your prayers for the ministry of Samaritan’s Purse as we seek to continue to reach as many people as possible with the Good News of Jesus Christ. Franklin Graham has an aggressive Crusade schedule already extending into 2007, along with our many other global outreaches.
Again, thank you for sharing your concerns. May God bless you.
In Christ’s service,
Sam McGinn
Senior Ministry Correspondent
Samaritan’s Purse
PO Box 3000 | Boone, NC 28607
828.262.1980 | Fax 828.266.1056
smcginn@samaritan.org
http://www.samaritanspurse.org
Billy Graham And Bill Clinton Are Wonderful Liars!
PR 24:25 But those who rebuke the wicked will have delight, And a good blessing will come upon them.
PR 28:4 Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, But such as keep the law contend with them.
Pr 28:6 Better is the poor who walks in his integrity Than one perverse in his ways, though he be rich.
On June 26 2005 I was watching Larry King live with Billy Graham who was fielding all the questions thrown at him. It was interesting to see this liar at work. He had no memory lapse at all. He could remember all the things that he wanted to remember but he could not remember making bad remarks about the Jews to Nixon. On March 17, 2002 The New York Times reported BILLY GRAHAM RESPONDS TO LINGERING ANGER OVER 1972 REMARKS ON JEWS By DAVID FIRESTONE
It seemed impossible, when H. R. Haldeman’s White House diaries came out in 1994, that the Rev. Billy Graham could once have joined with President Richard M. Nixon in discussing the “total Jewish domination of the media.” Could Mr. Graham, the great American evangelist, really have said the nation’s problem lies with “satanic Jews,” as Mr. Nixon’s aide recorded?
Mr. Graham’s sterling reputation as a healer and bridge-builder was so at odds with Mr. Haldeman’s account that Jewish groups paid little attention, especially because he denied the remarks so strongly.
“Those are not my words,” Mr. Graham said in a public statement in May 1994. “I have never talked publicly or privately about the Jewish people, including conversations with President Nixon, except in the most positive terms.”
That was the end of the story, it seemed, until two weeks ago, when the tape of that 1972 conversation in the Oval Office was made public by the National Archives. Three decades after it was recorded, the North Carolina preacher’s famous drawl is tinny but unmistakable on the tape, denigrating Jews in terms far stronger than the diary accounts.
“They’re the ones putting out the pornographic stuff,” Mr. Graham said on the tape, after agreeing with Mr. Nixon that left-wing Jews dominate the news media. The Jewish “stranglehold has got to be broken or the country’s going down the drain,” he continued, suggesting that if Mr. Nixon were re-elected, “then we might be able to do something.”
Finally, Mr. Graham said that Jews did not know his true feelings about them.
“I go and I keep friends with Mr. Rosenthal at The New York Times and people of that sort, you know,” he told Mr. Nixon, referring to A. M. Rosenthal, then the newspaper’s executive editor. “And all � I mean, not all the Jews, but a lot of the Jews are great friends of mine, they swarm around me and are friendly to me because they know that I’m friendly with Israel. But they don’t know how I really feel about what they are doing to this country. And I have no power, no way to handle them, but I would stand up if under proper circumstances.”
Mr. Graham, who is now 83 and in poor health, quickly issued a four- sentence apology, but he did not acknowledge making the statements and said he had no memory of the conversation, which took place after a prayer breakfast on Feb. 1, 1972.
On the program Bill Graham also stated that he and his wife each night would pray and read the bible faithfully and then watch Larry King live. The TV ratings show that only a minority of Americans watch and believe Larry King and think that he has something intelligent to offer people! Most normal people don’t watch Larry King live?
And the media also reported that Clinton Honors Graham at Last Revival By RACHEL ZOLL, AP Religion Writer June 25,2005
NEW YORK – As his final American revival meeting continued Saturday, a fragile Billy Graham was met onstage by former President Clinton, who honored the evangelist, calling him “a man I love.”
Graham called the Clintons “wonderful friends” and “a great couple,” quipping that the former president should become an evangelist and allow “his wife to run the country.”
Of course Southern Baptist Billy Graham, a Democrat, never said what Billy Clinton would preach and show by his example of life? It appears that Southern Baptist Evangelist Billy Graham doesn’t support Apostle Paul’s teaching on sexual immorality that Bill Clinton is an evil sexually immoral person:
I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner-not even to eat with such a person. For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”1 Corinthians 5:9-13
´´Bill Clinton is bad for women. For feminists and post feminists, single women, divorced women, married women, fat women, skinny women and all the others in between.´´ — Suzanne Fields
´´The defining characteristic of politics in our time is a loss of moral courage. … [Mr. Clinton] has created a culture of corruption and deceit.´´ –Steve Forbes