The AP clearly has not noticed the virtual ongoing war within the Catholic Church, especially with regards to government responsibility as opposed to private/church responsibility.  In no sphere is this internal war more evident than when it comes to matters involving the Church’s Doctrine on Social Justice.

The Doctrines on Social Justice are, perhaps, the most misunderstood and lied-about facets of the Catholic faith.  Just about everyone in public life, including even the majority of Catholics themselves, completely ignore the fundamentals of Social Justice teaching.  They summarily conclude that Social Justice is a synonym for socialist redistributive policies, which seek to equalize material outcomes for all.  I call this the Kumbayah Fallacy.

These nuns have fallen hook, line and sinker for the Kumbayah Fallacy.  Right along with all the liberation theologians, who have shamefully wrapped Marxist doctrine around the cross of Christ for decades.

This mingling of socialism with Christianity makes a diabolical mockery of the Church’s genuine Social Doctrine, as delineated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  In fact, the Catholic Church explicitly rebukes all forms of “communism” and “socialism” right there in plain sight in the Catechism.  While the Church also condemns completely unfettered capitalism, with no regulations whatsoever, She saves most condemnation for the Marxist doctrines, which attempt to regulate the economy “solely by centralized planners,” as this “perverts the basis of social bonds” between human beings.

While President Obama has made wide use of his claim to fighting for Social Justice, especially with his zeal towards a government takeover of our healthcare system, he has utterly ignored the natural – fully predictable – unintended consequences of his attempt to reorder the best medical delivery system the world has ever created.

In fact, this reordering of the American medical delivery system to suit the whims of socialist reformers, President Obama is ensuring a genuine Social Justice nightmare for the whole world.

In which Country do the new drugs, medical innovations and most advanced surgical techniques originate?  Exactly.  In the United States of America.

But the United States is not a selfish Nation.  And every one of these medical “miracles,” the products of free enterprise, under the supervision of government oversight, makes its way quite quickly to the rest of the world.  Socialist countries, unable to produce the cures themselves because they have choked innovation with their own “centralized planner” philosophies, then buy the new American drugs at highly discounted prices for their own citizens.  In effect, the American medical system quite heavily subsidizes all the other medical systems of the world with its own ingenuity and enterprise.  Our doctors routinely travel around the globe, sharing and teaching their techniques to other doctors in other countries.  Our charities routinely offer free medical aid around the globe.

Of course, once Obamacare makes all these “miracle” cures unprofitable, those new innovations will dry up here just as surely as they have in all the other socialized medical systems in the world.

That, in itself, creates a wholly unnecessary Social Justice nightmare for which not only America, but the entire world will pay a hefty price in untold suffering and death.

In addition to drying up incentives for medical innovations, which aid the entire human population, Obamacare will immediately cut the numbers of practicing doctors by up to 45%.  This Investors Business Daily polling data, taken last summer, was widely criticized by liberal advocacy groups, but then was vindicated by a figure of 29.2% doctors quitting in an insert of the New England Journal of Medicine.  The fact that a sizeable proportion of medical doctors would quit “if patient loads increase while pay decreases,” should not be at all surprising, since this is precisely what has happened in every other country with socialized medical models.  Decreasing the supply of doctors will unarguably strike a blow at Social Justice, which simply cannot be overstated.  One can throw all the taxpayer money he wishes at a disease, but that won’t cure what ails real patients.  Keeping people unnecessarily sick because of a doctor shortage is unconscionable in the realm of Social Justice doctrine.

Another huge piece of the Social Justice puzzle, which is mightily threatened by Obamacare, is the charity sector of American medicine.

There is not a single medical delivery entity in America today, which does not have a social worker charged with helping people pay for their medical costs.  In every hospital in these United States, patients are helped in myriad ways to either work out extended payment plans for services or receive already-available taxpayer assistance or charity dollars to meet their obligations.  American doctors do much pro-bono work, just as lawyers do.  But studies invariably show that once government takes over the obligations of individuals, charity dries up, causing the government burden to be much greater than it was believed it would be at the outset of new programs.  Under Obamacare, not only will taxpayers assume the burdens of more and more entitlements, but will now also assume the burdens being alleviated through generous charity today.

Killing opportunities for charity may fit perfectly with the Marxist-oriented Kumbayah Fallacy, but it proves a diabolical mockery of the doctrines on genuine Social Justice.

Then, of course, there is the abortion component of Obamacare.  As prohibitions against taxpayer funds being funneled to abortion coverage are not included in the Senate bill, every American taxpayer will now be conscripted into the Democrats’ genocidal denial of Social Justice to pre-born Americans – with no provision for conscientious objector status.  This one thing – this fundamental, primordial facet of Social Justice – is more than enough reason to reject Obamacare on its whole.  As the Pope and all others before him have repeatedly proclaimed, the right to life, once conceived, is the fundamental right upon which all others rest.  No one – not even a president – can claim to be fighting for Social Justice without first protecting this unalienable right.

It is a sad commentary on our times, when even Catholics of high standing do not know enough about their own faith to stand up for it in the public square.  Supporting Obamacare, and the piece-by-piece destruction of the finest medical system ever created,  is an affront to the doctrine of Social Justice.  It will prove a nightmare, not only for Americans, but for the whole world.

So let’s look at one piece of important news as an example…but then ask how you would be  affected if health care reform was botched.

Our example is from the world of drug manufacturing. The second phase results of a monumental pharmaceutical study were released a few days ago, and women everywhere must pay attention.  For those who believed the myth that cardiovascular disease was not significant in women, and that the use of statins wouldn’t help women who might be at risk – this is a big wake-up call.

Pay attention:  you are at risk and statins can be of enormous benefit.  (And improper legislation may prevent women from having access to such a beneficial product).

What was the name of the study?

Justification for the Use of statins in Prevention: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin.  That’s JUPITER, for short.

Why was the study done?

1) Twice as many women die of cardiovascular events (CVE’s) than from all forms of cancer combined.

2) You don’t have to have high cholesterol to be at increased risk for CVE’s.

3) If you have glucose issues, you are at risk for diabetes and increased CVE risk.

Astra-Zeneca wanted to know if their drug, CRESTOR, could help these people.

This drug is a statin, which slows the rate that cholesterol is produced in the body.

What did the study measure?

The effects of 20mg of the drug on the risk of CVE’s.

Why was the study important?

1) Women previously weren’t considered candidates for statins.  Now they are.

2) It was huge.  17,802 participants.  9,000 got the drug, of which 3,426 were women.

3) It was long-term, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled.

Dr. Benjamin Ansell, MD FACC, Assoc Prof of Medicine, UCLA School of Medicine, sums it up.  “This is an important study as it not only included significant representation by women, but it identified a strategy whereby their leading cause of death – heart disease – could be minimized.

What were the results?

76% of women, 60 and over, had arterial revascularization.  In other words, the clogged arteries of most of these women were cleared out.

Even if a woman doesn’t actually have CV disease, but is at increased risk from other factors, the drug reduced the risk of CVE’s by 46%.

For the 4,100 patients whose LDL fell below 50mg/dL because of this drug, they experienced a whopping 63% reduction in CVE’s.

What this means for women

Statins aren’t just for women who have cardiovascular disease.  They aren’t just for women with high cholesterol.  They are for any woman who exhibits certain risk factors.

The bottom line, therefore, is that statins can make a huge difference in prevention. Dr. Ansell says, “Considering that women have a higher likelihood of their first heart attack being fatal than men, are less prone to get as aggressive care during a heart attack as men, and have fewer premonitory symptoms than men, prevention is particularly key among this group. The aggressive use of statins among this group of women whose risk was not previously recognized and who were not considered candidates for cholesterol medications saved lives here.  It puts in better perspective the balance between risk and benefit in this population.”

What this might mean for women

So here we have just one example of a powerful new drug that really saves lives.  What might health care legislation do to the availability of this drug?  My concern is that this particularly effective drug might not be available because other options would be cheaper for the government to select.  Let’s remember, any government-run plan is not going to be the Deluxe Luxury Package.  It’s taxpayer money being used.

What might happen if the government doesn’t agree to pay a good price for the most effective drugs in a given category.  There’s nothing that forces a drug company to take the deal, but if health reform results in any de facto price cap, then drug companies may not have enough revenue to continue their R&D work.  Or they may have to let workers go.  You can never look at a company’s profit, executive salary, or product cost in a vacuum.  You must look at the entire company, and even the sector, and figure out how to let them do what they do best, while serving the maximum number of people possible.

So we must be forever-vigilant about every aspect of the health care legislation.  Will it do what it intends?  In my experience, consumers are harmed more than helped anytime government gets too involved.

“America is the only industrialized nation that doesn’t have a national health plan,” says Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), former Gov. Howard Dean (D-Vt.), and countless others who want the United States government to guarantee health coverage to all.

Protesters at a recent rally in downtown Los Angeles demanded universal coverage. They told Reason.tv that America is a cruel land where profits come before people.

“It’s disgusting!” said one woman. “There should be no profits in health care!” What about those who argue that profits drive medical innovation? “I think that’s kind of sick,” declared another protester, who wants the U.S. to be more like Canada, where government policy keeps drug prices, and drug company profits, lower than in America.

Many regard the profit motive as cruel, but it actually produces compassionate results. After all, America has generated vastly more medical innovations than other nations. Included in the long list is the innovation that saved the life of Dave Christensen, construction supervisor, husband, and father. After being diagnosed with cancer, Christensen was lucky enough to be given a then-experimental drug that probably wouldn’t have been developed or brought to market in any other country in the world.

If America follows the lead of the rest of the world and clamps down on profits in health care, who will make tomorrow’s wonder drugs?

“Drug companies that take big risks may make big profits,” says Reason.tv’s Nick Gillespie, who hosts the video. “But I say, good for them. If they’re saving lives, I hope they make a killing.”

“Would ObamaCare Kill Medical Innovation?” runs about seven minutes. Producer-Writer: Ted Balaker; Producer: Hawk Jensen; Director of Photography: Alex Manning; Associate Producer: Paul Detrick.

For downloadable versions of this and other videos, go to http://reason.tv

Special thanks to the Independence Institute for arranging and underwriting travel to Canada. Visit them at http://www.i2i.org/