YOUR COMMENTS

Joanne of Manchester, things like defense and police and mail are tasks that the federal government are supposed to do. The US Constitution says the Congress shall have power "to establish post offices", "to provide for the punishment of counterfeiting", "to define and punish piracies and felonies", "to raise and support armies", "to provide and maintain a navy". But where does it say that the federal government must provide health care? The ninth amendment implies federal government should stay out of health care.

Furthermore, do not accuse the Union Leader of "semantics" when it was Bishop Robinson and Bishop McCormack who mixed Christianity and health care before the Union Leader decided to respond.
- Nick, Manchester

Why do liberals think that everyone that has Healthcare Insurance is wealthy? Small business owners w/less than 20 employees are far from being wealthy. My family is covered from my husbands employer, with money taken out weekly toward that benefit. Does that make us wealthy? FYI, most families ARE covered from a spouse's employer, the same said for single people. That does not make us all wealthy.
- Lee Ann McCarthy, Londonderry

I see the UL is using semantics again when it comes to Christianity and health care. How about the fact that we spend 1.8 trillion on defense a year and how much on free education, mail, police, fire etc. Are these all socialist programs too?
- Joanne, Manchester

Robert in Deerfield,
The reason so many buisinesses still have headquarters in the US is BECAUSE we lower the tax rate to 17%. Otherwise they would have all moved out and we'd have a 93% tax on $0 (thats zero revenue for math challenged liberals). Why don't liberals understand that there is global competition for buisness HQ's/industry/jobs? The richest 5% pay 60% of income taxes. How much more do liberals like Robert want to steal from the rich to create new government hand-outs? Is there no end to their greed??
- Jim, Manchester

Basically the idea expressed over and over in the UL is that all money belongs to Republicanics. Occasionally, they agree to give a little to others but basically any money that is not in their wallets has been stolen by Democrats. Removing themselves from the tax roles (half of the Fortune 500 pay no taxes whatsoever) and hiring legal staff to institute and expand tax loop holes it is the rest of us that have to pay for governance, roads, bridges, schools, military, police, legal system and on and on. It used to be that rich people paid their fair share. Since they made the most out of our system of government, they paid the most. The marginal tax rate was 93% when Eisenhower (a Republican or have you disavowed him by now?) was president. Now the effective corporate tax rate is down to about 17% and that is only the corporations whose offices are still in the United States. But still that isn't enough. Greed just can't be satisfied.
- Robert, Deerfield

Aren't we all getting a bit tired of the State of NH and our federal government wanting and insisting on being our mommies as though they know what's best for any of us? Many of them can't even run their own lives very well and that goes for both of these supposed Christian leaders.

Calley, get a grip! You think the federal gov't will do a good job and not waste huge sums of money. Man are you naive!
- judy, bradford

As a Pro-life Catholic, I find it ironic that these liberal icons, the poster children for "separation of church & state", only want to impose their "christian religious" views on others when it fits their political agendas. Thankfully, the US Constitution protects us from forced government indenture advocated by liberal freebooters such as Mr Robinson & Bishop McCormick.
- Mae, Plaistow

Thank you for an important & thought provoking analysis. Should be required reading for legislators w/ a 'tax & spend' attitude!
- Paul, Sunapee

But, this would not be a "new" "redistribution of wealth," if you want to use that utterly inaccurate idea. Not even close.

This is because there is a status quo redistribution of wealth, whereby huge monies are taken from all of us as profits simply because we let insurers handle health care payments. Then, adding insult to injury, they take some of our money to run tv ads promoting drugs most people do not need, and they monetarily reward doctors to further promote drug-based, instead of behavior based, treatments.

It's a racket, and the racketeers have the Union Leader in their pocket. It's like the mafia owning the booze business during prohibition, they didn't want change either, because they owned the cash cow.
- Calley, Nashua

Our Declaration of Independence made a point of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. While those words are not in the Constitution, the preamble sets a high standard by stating we will “promote the general Welfare”. Of course health care is not cited as a right in the constitution, but many things we accept as rights are derived from these cardinal rights such as: a living wage, clean air and water, safe transportation, a healthy and safe working environment, etc. Without these derived rights, “life” and “the pursuit of happiness” would be endangered, would it not?

I would argue the same is true for health care, for without our health, where is “life” and “the pursuit of happiness”? It should not be a luxury to have, only if you are rich enough to pay for it, otherwise those lofty words we hold so dear, are meaningless.
- Gary Way, Bedford

If we cede healthcare as a "right" that the government "must" provide, you also are opening up the door to control over anything the government determines violates that right (just like our civil rights "hate" crimes.)

For instance, the government could, as they are doing in Europe, determine that ipods can only have so much volume to save your hearing.

The government could determine, as they have in China, that two children is the max.

It could decide that the snack you enjoy has too much sugar, as they have in New York City, or that your favorite meal has too many calories, as they have in San Francisco.

More insidiously, it could determine that certain lifestyles merit less "rights" protections than others, as they have in Iran, where the government has determined that homosexuality is punishable by death (which should make at least one of these clergy squirm).

The point is that when you put a government in charge of anything, you are also opening it up to the whims of whatever regime is in power. Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, whomever is in charge. Think about that.
- William Simpson, Concord

As I said, the example of the Acts of the Apostles is an argument used by those who are trying to persuade some of us, through guilt, that we are not being Christian if we do not support the bills that are floating around at the moment. As I also said, I have no problem paying my taxes willingly to help those that are needy, but I cannot willingly support any one of those health care bills if abortions are provided for with my taxes or if there is any lack of care for those at the end of their lives. Those are not moral imperatives, but spiritual suicide.

As a Catholic, I believe in the total and complete respect and dignity of a person through their whole life span, not just at the beginning or the end of life. Helping others through our paying of taxes is not only a personal moral imperative but a societal moral imperative as well.

However, with that said, when society decides and judges certain segments of our society are not worth protecting and aiding, then I have to rethink my position. I will never agree to paying for abortions and/or lack of care at the end of life. I may have no choice but to do so in the final result, but it will not be done with or willingly or with a joyful heart.
- Bob, New Hampton

What this editorial is really saying is that life begins at conception and ends with birth.

You can't have life without your health.
- Putney, Manchester

Wealthy tax-exempt money generating machines like the Catholic and Episcopal churches should focus on their proper roles and not attempt to influence how tax money is spent.
- Pat, Littleton

"As quoted: What makes health care so much more important than food, clothing and shelter that it must be financed by forcibly extracting money from some and giving it to others? "Of course they can relate, they do the same thing. But it doesn't make it right.
- Lisa, Salem NH

Good job obfuscating the moral imperatives of life. Faith communities have a long tradition of calling for care for the poor and marginalized in society. The Dignity of each Human Person is the moral imperative. Those who benefit from services and efforts of low-wage workers have a responsibility to provide for the needs they can not afford. The state already compels medical providers to render services regardless of compensation and to equate religious donations with taxes blurs the issue.
- Leonard Campbell, Center Harbor

So many times the argument is used that in the Acts of the Apostles, the faithful sold all they had and brought the proceeds to the Apostles for distribution among the needy in their midst. What is not said by this argument is that this was done voluntarily and not under coercion. I for one have no qualms in providing for those that are needy, but I refuse to do so under a plan that includes paying for a mother to kill her own young and not providing complete and total care for those at the end of their lives. If as a Christian I am to respect and care for a human life from womb to tomb then I cannot support these health care bills. At all.
- Bob, New Hampton

The headline of this article is definately overdone. That being said, it should be noted that the church leaders who are calling on others to "pay up" do not even purchase their own meal tickets much less healthcare. The last people who should decide or even comment on how Mr & Mrs Average American spend their barely-enough-to-live-on, hard earned wages are those who already have free lunch.
- Deb, Pelham

Thank you for this editorial. It needed to be said, and it was critical that this paper took this position.

More to the point, it is terribly unfortunate that Robinson and McCormack cheapened their roles as moral leaders in the New Hampshire community. I think that many will no longer listen to or value their thoughts on important issues where they truly should be speaking to the public. It was a said day for our state's faith community.
- Glen, Manchester, NH

Precisely right on editorial. Good job.

Now I have a tough question for the anonymous editorial writer. If Bishop McCormack can be so wrong that he, "confuses a moral good with a right" then how can anyone trust his wisdom and judgement in the Bishop's apparent support for the woefully misguided CMC and Dartmouth-Hitchcock "affiliation?"

Similarly, since Ovide Lamontagne was so obviously wrong when he (as attorney for the Diocese) promoted the since-reversed CMC-Elliot merger known as Optima years ago, and is now promoting (as attorney) the CMC-DH "affiliation", how can Ovide Lamontagne be entrusted with the responsibilites of the US Senate?

When presumed "friends" like the Bishop and Mr. Lamontagne cannot get simple matters of principle correct, how can they be trusted with more challenging issues in roles of higher responsibility?

We pesky little pro-lifers in New Hampshire just cannot endure seeing our presumed "friends" making such egregious mistakes over and over.
- Ed Holdgate, Sandown, NH