[...]glucose monitors can be obtained free of charge[...]…

[...]the Amazon Kindle is one of the leading ereaders[...]…

[...]keeping diabetes in check begins with monitoring[...]…

[...]is made possible through dark under eye’s formula[...]…

[...]the newest format for digital reading[...]…

Skeptics say “”Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. If someone accused you of favoring “private insurers” because they pay for ads in the CI, or any other imaginary accusation, would you feel obligated to prove that the claim is not true? That could lead to an endless cycle of suspicion by your readers. “Is he covering it up?” Ergo, the innuendo, when readers beleive that there must be substance to the wild accusations. It's called “The Big Lie Method.”, and this is why Dan Brown came to mind.

Like you, the Church need not respond to this rather silly accusation until some credible journalist presents some extraordinay evidence.

The answer so far is silence. We have never reported that it has been anything but silence. But in everything the Church and Chaput have said about health reform, the focus has been on the fear that tax-payers would be forced to subsidize abortions. That that is Chaput's main concern in the matter of contemporary health care reform is a matter of record. See Chaput's writing on the matter. Nowhere has he acknowledged the fact that Americans give more right now to health insurance companies directly than they pay in taxes, especially more than they would pay in taxes to support a government health care plan. Nor has he acknowledged that Americans have less control over how insurance companies spend their money than they would over how the government would spend their money under the plan Chaput has cast under suspicion and lead people to fight against.

One system is in effect right now. It is an egregiously inadequate and inefficient and unfair system and it pays for abortions. The Catholic Bishops have not spoken about it, if they have, they have not done so with any of the fervor with which they have opposed the Democratic health plan, which absolutely does have some regulations in place to guard against indiscriminate funding of abortion.

As far as abortion is concerned, the government plan would seem the better of the two plans in that it allows citizens to control spending through voting. There is no voting at Aetna and, as you say, there is no free market in health care either, no matter how many times that canard is repeated. So, seen thru that lens, it's difficult to understand why Chaput opposes the health reform plan as a sly way to increase access to abortion? It's a legitimate question that he could clear up very quickly, it seems to me.

Please feel free to cross-post this reply on your site. As for me, you currently have a big credibility gap, so I'll move on to more productive reading.