Setting the Record Straight on Subsidiarity and Effective Government

Originally posted at Street Prophets

In my recent posts on health care I have tried to weave several basic threads through them. Two of which concern A) the mendacity of those of my fellow Catholics who espouse a libertarian economic outlook; and B) the need for liberals to advocate for this issue (as well as many other issues) more effectively by reminding Americans that government does indeed often get the job done right.

On both fronts there were some recent but long-awaited breakthroughs.

In my last piece, which concerned the Catholic doctrine of subsidiarity -- the concept that "issues be treated at the lowest level possible, that is, at the level closest to the individual." I discussed how certain Catholic bishops, along with movement conservative activist Deal Hudson, have twisted its definition to one that makes its appear to be an abomination against activist government.

One of the bishops I took aim at was St. Joseph, Kansas Bishop Robert W. Finn who, along with Kansas City, Kansas Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann, recently issued a Joint Pastoral Statement that essentially made a mockery of Catholic social justice teaching -- perhaps done so as political payback to allies in the GOP trying to stop Democratic legislation designed to provide Americans with universal health care, complete with a public option for health insurance.

Now a priest has courageously chosen to speak out.

In an open letter, recently published in the National Catholic Reporter, Fr. Michael J. Gillgannon - a missionary from the bishop's diocese - bluntly took on the St. Joe prelate’s blatant hogwash. Here is a sample:

…I have been deeply concerned by your pastoral document, co-authored with Archbishop Naumann, on health care in the United States. Many priests and laypeople have wondered about your applications of the principles of Subsidiarity and Personal Responsibility. 47,000,000 citizens in the world’s richest country are without health care. The national arguments for change have been going on for years. We cannot leave those poor without care. Your document seems to say the poor must fend for themselves and take better care of themselves. It seems to say “private” care is more responsible as opposed to “government bureaucracies”. Would you be meaning government administered “Medicare” and “Medicaid”? Would you be counseling Catholics to leave those programs for private programs?

As well as:

Traditional Catholic Social teaching has always praised the noble task of government and responsible political actors to protect and promote the “common good”. The government is not the enemy of the people. It is the servant or so I was always taught in Catholic schools and seminaries. Are you suggesting a change in that teaching?

Good for Father Gillgannon!

The other thread was how it is easy for conservative pundits to get their message through since they constantly frame their arguments on the urban myth that government is always incompetent. This is part and parcel of their anti-public option argument.

To that end, Marie Cocco showed us all how to answer back.

In a piece published earlier this week, Cocco noted some highly effective government-run health care initiatives:

Now that everyone in politics has concluded that the "public option" is about to be very publicly dropped from health overhaul legislation, perhaps it is time that everyone understands that the public options we already have are working very well.

She continued:

The number of uninsured climbed by 682,000 in 2008, another figure that is sure to rise as the impact of job losses and benefit cuts in 2009 are felt. There are 6.6 million more Americans without insurance now than there were in 2001, at the bottom of the last recession, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
The number of uninsured would have been far higher had there not been an increase in coverage through Medicaid and Medicare. While private health policies continued to decline, Medicare and Medicaid enrollment rose, and these programs now insure 29 percent of Americans.

And finally:

The government has safeguarded the weakest in society from the worst of our economy's failures. It has done so through government-funded (but not government-run) health insurance that relies on private doctors and hospitals to deliver care and, in Medicare particularly, offers a wide choice of providers. Its cost is high. But the growth in Medicare spending per patient has been slower in recent years than the growth in per-patient spending in the private insurance market.

Why are these two pieces so important? Because in the case of Fr. Gilgannon I can’t help but wonder if the good priest found it easier to take on Bishop Finn’s baloney because liberal and progressive people of faith are speaking out with an ever increasing amount of determination – and doing so in a way that is starting to match that of the Religious Right.

Marie Cocco’s contribution is also very significant. Besides providing an effective argument supporting a public option for health care delivery, she has also effectively demolished a foundational theme of movement conservatives: government cannot do anything right. Cocco understands that is not enough for liberals to argue the issue at hand, but to also refute the false foundations upon which our opponents’ position rely upon.