(30% of) Firms to cut health plans as reform starts: survey

[Prodigal_Son1]

Of course “proper” means there are exclusions! As far as the bolded section above, it doesn’t make any sense. My point was that you have to take the general statement, “government,” and read it in light of subsidiarity and the application to our own form of government. It is irresponsible to take the Pope’s words and draw the conclusion that he is advocating pervasive and invasive action at all levels of government. He said no such thing.

Each level of government should take action “proper” to its role. Understanding our Constitution and the principle of subsidiarity should lead to a clear understanding that the federal government has a very limited role in healthcare.

Okay, fair enough; however, since he delivered his message to ‘nations’, it seems to be safe to assume the most encompassing part of government has the priority, which in the US is the federal government.

I don’t see how we can stand on our ‘constitution’ as a way to exclude our government, or else we have to include all governments in the world as rightfully excluded from any Church teaching that their 'constitution, or same form of, clashes with Church teachings.

I have tried my best to express my view in this discussion. Please answer the following question for me and maybe it will help shed light on the ‘wrong’ some see with my view.

What is specifically objectionable to a Christian nation, where the majority of the population claims to be a part of the Christian community, using it’s ‘federal’ government to properly administer universal health care to all it’s citizens?

 

[rlg94086]

Okay, fair enough; however, since he delivered his message to ‘nations’, it seems to be safe to assume the most encompassing part of government has the priority, which in the US is the federal government.

I don’t see how we can stand on our ‘constitution’ as a way to exclude our government, or else we have to include all governments in the world as rightfully excluded from any Church teaching.

I have tried my best to express my view in this discussion. Please answer the following question for me and maybe it will help shed light on the ‘wrong’ some see with my view.

What is specifically objectionable to a Christian nation, where the majority of the population claims to be a part of the Christian community, using it’s ‘federal’ government to properly administer universal health care to all it’s citizens?

I have to head to work, so I know you won’t like my answer. Check out Chapter 7, section 4 of the Compendium regarding the balance of solidarity and subsidiarity and avoiding the “welfare state.” The Church teaches that large, bureaucratic institutions are an affront to human dignity.

Also, reading the Constitution to understand the role of the federal and state governments.
The majority of the nations the Pope was addressing are smaller than some of our states.

Counter question - are youn opposed to the UN (world “government”) administering a global health plan? If not, why not?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I have to head to work, so I know you won’t like my answer. Check out Chapter 7, section 4 of the Compendium regarding the balance of solidarity and subsidiarity and avoiding the “welfare state.” The Church teaches that large, bureaucratic institutions are an affront to human dignity.

Also, reading the Constitution to understand the role of the federal and state governments.
The majority of the nations the Pope was addressing are smaller than some of our states.

Counter question - are youn opposed to the UN (world “government”) administering a global health plan? If not, why not?

Tell you what, you answer my question first then I’ll answer yours.

 

[rlg94086]

Tell you what, you answer my question first then I’ll answer yours.

I already did.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I already did.

I do not see your answer? Please repeat it, when you have time.

 

[rlg94086]

Okay, fair enough; however, since he delivered his message to ‘nations’, it seems to be safe to assume the most encompassing part of government has the priority, which in the US is the federal government.

I don’t see how we can stand on our ‘constitution’ as a way to exclude our government, or else we have to include all governments in the world as rightfully excluded from any Church teaching that their 'constitution, or same form of, clashes with Church teachings.

I have tried my best to express my view in this discussion. Please answer the following question for me and maybe it will help shed light on the ‘wrong’ some see with my view.

What is specifically objectionable to a Christian nation, where the majority of the population claims to be a part of the Christian community, using it’s ‘federal’ government to properly administer universal health care to all it’s citizens?

I have to head to work, so I know you won’t like my answer. Check out Chapter 7, section 4 of the Compendium regarding the **balance of solidarity and subsidiarity and avoiding the “welfare state.” The Church teaches that large, bureaucratic institutions are an affront to human dignity. **

Also, reading the Constitution to understand the role of the federal and state governments.
The majority of the nations the Pope was addressing are smaller than some of our states.

Counter question - are youn opposed to the UN (world “government”) administering a global health plan? If not, why not?

I do not see your answer? Please repeat it, when you have time.

Pretty clear…my objection is to the affront to human dignity large bureacracies pose.

Now, your answer?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Pretty clear…my objection is to the affront to human dignity large bureacracies pose.

Now, your answer?

I would not be opposed. As I’ve tried to explain, The Christian goal is to bring Christ to every soul. If that were achieved, I believe we would use every avenue available to fulfill His teachings.

Do you not see an affront to human dignity when one fails to receive medical attention, that is technologically available, simply because they cannot afford it? I cannot see how someone in need of medical attention would be indignant at the government offering them the health care they need if they could not afford it. I see more affront to human dignity by finding ways to avoid giving health care to the sick.

What is the affront to human dignity in government offering universal health care?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Large groups seem to enjoy lower health care costs, through insurance. Why don’t we have a group plan for Catholics? Seems like it would help in evangelizing.

 

[rlg94086]

I would not be opposed. As I’ve tried to explain, The Christian goal is to bring Christ to every soul. If that were achieved, I believe we would use every avenue available to fulfill His teachings.

Do you not see an affront to human dignity when one fails to receive medical attention, that is technologically available, simply because they cannot afford it? I cannot see how someone in need of medical attention would be indignant at the government offering them the health care they need if they could not afford it. I see more affront to human dignity by finding ways to avoid giving health care to the sick.

What is the affront to human dignity in government offering universal health care?

I already answered that question. I don’t see any point in further discussion until you educate yourself on Church teaching in regards to the roles of government and the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity.

 

[rlg94086]

Large groups seem to enjoy lower health care costs, through insurance. Why don’t we have a group plan for Catholics? Seems like it would help in evangelizing.

Sure. Nothing wrong with that!

 

[1holycatholic]

Okay, fair enough; however, since he delivered his message to ‘nations’, it seems to be safe to assume the most encompassing part of government has the priority, which in the US is the federal government.

That’s a bad assumption since that is directly in opposition to the principle of subsidiarity which calls for involvement of smallest group first, not the largest. The social doctrine of the Church states the federal government would be the last organization that should be involved, and even then for as limited a time as possible. I’ve already provided a link to the social doctrine of the Church. I couldn’t post the parts on subsidiarity since it is too big for the forum software. The etymology of the word subsidiarity encapsulates the Church doctrine.

etymonline.com/index.php?term=subsidiarity
1936, from Ger. Subsidiarität, paraphrasing the Latin of Pius XI in his Quadragesimo Anno of 1931; see subsidiary + -ity.

Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them. [Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, 1931]

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I already answered that question. I don’t see any point in further discussion until you educate yourself on Church teaching in regards to the roles of government and the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity.

Please explain how it’s affront to human dignity to have government offer universal health care, specifically. I cannot see it in your answers and would really be interested in hearing your ‘interpretation’.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That’s a bad assumption since that is directly in opposition to the principle of subsidiarity which calls for involvement of smallest group first, not the largest. The social doctrine of the Church states the federal government would be the last organization that should be involved, and even then for as limited a time as possible. I’ve already provided a link to the social doctrine of the Church. I couldn’t post the parts on subsidiarity since it is too big for the forum software. The etymology of the word subsidiarity encapsulates the Church doctrine.

etymonline.com/index.php?term=subsidiarity
1936, from Ger. Subsidiarität, paraphrasing the Latin of Pius XI in his Quadragesimo Anno of 1931; see subsidiary + -ity.

Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them. [Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, 1931]

So, you believe this says every individual for themselves? It’s the poor peoples fault, because they can accomplish by their own initiative?

I’m going to be perfectly honest and say I see this being read with a biased eye, for what appears to be a lack of wanting to share through the form of taxes. My taxes go for enough bad and I would be extremely glad, as a Christian, to see some of it go to good, or the least of His people.

Lastly, lesser and subordinate organizations have become overpowered by the astronomical high cost of health care. There is a lady in our Church, who is eat up with cancer. I dare say our Parish could not ‘dent’ her medical bills. It is going to take a greater and higher association to achieve this for all our country’s sick.

Remember, I said I live in a rural area. It was historically a fishing village, and there are a lot of people who depend on that industry to live. How can these people get health care through their own initiative and industry?

As I said, Church documents must be read through a spiritual eye and not a political eye.

Tell you what, please explain what you believe the following means, and how it would be an affront to human dignity?

For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.

 

[gamewell45]

Exactly, and from what I’ve been reading, a lot of them are fed up with insurance paperwork, with government regulations, with ‘standards of care’ which don’t fit individual situations, with coding every conceivable action, with loss of personal contact. It would be nice if universal healthcare via government would make all that better but I’m afraid it won’t.

My initial response is that if as doctors they find that they are fed up with insurance paperwork (which i’m sure their billing office handles, so they can focus on the patients) then they are in the wrong profession. As with any business, especially when dealing with insurance companies, paperwork is a necessary evil. Unless the AMA lobbies the insurance companies to change how they do business, there will be no change and It’ll be business as usual.

 

[rlg94086]

Please explain how it’s affront to human dignity to have government offer universal health care, specifically. I cannot see it in your answers and would really be interested in hearing your ‘interpretation’.

That’s because I’ve never said it is an affront to human dignity to have “government offer universal health care.” If it is local government, I have no objection to it, as this would be in line with subsidiarity. I will find you the quote from *Centesimus Annus *(I think…) that explains how large bureaucracies are an affront to human dignity. They are impersonal - people aren’t treated like people.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That’s because I’ve never said it is an affront to human dignity to have “government offer universal health care.” If it is local government, I have no objection to it, as this would be in line with subsidiarity. I will find you the quote from *Centesimus Annus *(I think…) that explains how large bureaucracy’s are an affront to human dignity. They are impersonal - people aren’t treated like people.

How would you feel about federal dollars funding health care on a state, or even county, level?

 

[1holycatholic]

So, you believe this says every individual for themselves? It’s the poor peoples fault, because they can accomplish by their own initiative?

I believe you can’t be bothered with learning Church social doctrine and are attempting to smear others when you can’t defend your position.

I’m going to be perfectly honest and say I see this being read with a biased eye, for what appears to be a lack of wanting to share through the form of taxes. My taxes go for enough bad and I would be extremely glad, as a Christian, to see some of it go to good, or the least of His people.

I am uncharitable because I understand and follow Church social doctrine?

Lastly, lesser and subordinate organizations have become overpowered by the astronomical high cost of health care. There is a lady in our Church, who is eat up with cancer. I dare say our Parish could not ‘dent’ her medical bills. It is going to take a greater and higher association to achieve this for all our country’s sick.

I’d be surprised if there was a parish that didn’t have several people suffering from cancer. Most parishes have many parishioners suffering from cancer.

If your parish couldn’t put a dent in her medical bills how is the federal government going to do so?

Remember, I said I live in a rural area. It was historically a fishing village, and there are a lot of people who depend on that industry to live. How can these people get health care through their own initiative and industry?

As I said, Church documents must be read through a spiritual eye and not a political eye.

Rural people had healthcare prior to intervention by the federal government. It’s not true that rural people are too incompetent to provide for themselves.

Tell you what, please explain what you believe the following means, and how it would be an affront to human dignity?

I’ve given you the link to the social doctrine of the Church. Read it. There’s no point in engaging in single sentence pseudo-Protestant hermeneutics.

 

[rlg94086]

How would you feel about federal dollars funding health care on a state, or even county, level?

Completely dumb. Where do “federal dollars” come from? That’s right! The people. Where do state, county, municipal dollars come from? Same people. It makes no sense to tax people federally and create a bureacratic department to then disperse those funds to the states.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I believe you can’t be bothered with learning Church social doctrine and are attempting to smear others when you can’t defend your position.

I feel I’ve learned about Church doctrine and am not trying so ‘smear’ anyone. What do you take the quote to mean?

You call me wrong and can’t be bothered to correct a brother with a breakdown interpretation, word by word if necessary?

I am uncharitable because I understand and follow Church social doctrine?

I didn’t know how else to state what I feel was an honest opinion. You have not stated your opposition to a universal health care, other than base it on your interpretation, without a specific explanation of whether the two teachings can work together according to the Pope and Cardinal, who made the statements you have issue with.

I’d be surprised if there was a parish that didn’t have several people suffering from cancer. Most parishes have many parishioners suffering from cancer.

And it seems some say it’s okay for them to suffer, without health care, because a ‘government’ health care would be against Church doctrine.

If your parish couldn’t put a dent in her medical bills how is the federal government going to do so?

Hate to answer a question with a question, but your answer will go a long way in this discussion. Would you be willing to pay more in taxes if the government could provide everyone with health care?

Rural people had healthcare prior to intervention by the federal government. It’s not true that rural people are too incompetent to provide for themselves.

I love my neighbors and never said they were ‘incompetent’. I asked, ‘How can these people get health care through their own initiative and industry?’ When was this health care available and what did the government do to take it away? And, if the government did take it away, what’s wrong with them trying to reinstate it?

I’ve given you the link to the social doctrine of the Church. Read it. There’s no point in engaging in single sentence pseudo-Protestant hermeneutics.

The irony is, that can go either way…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Completely dumb. Where do “federal dollars” come from? That’s right! The people. Where do state, county, municipal dollars come from? Same people. It makes no sense to tax people federally and create a bureacratic department to then disperse those funds to the states.

You realize how many programs are federally funded, for our benefit, right now?

According to your statements, would you approve of local government taxing for health care in their individual areas?