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

[Scott_Lafrance]

Where in Catholic social teaching can someone find the “cafeteria” option where they can ignore the principle of subsidiarity? If that’s not there then you’re saying the pope and a cardinal are flagrantly disregarding the social justice teaching of the Church by throwing the principle of subsidiarity under the bus.

I think its important to note the the pope and cardinal speak only of universal access to health care, not the universal PROVISION of healthcare. I have the right to go to the doctor and be treated. I don’t have the right to send someone else the bill, because it assumes that I have a right to their property. The Church cannot declare that one has a right to something that violates the rights of someone else.

 

[1holycatholic]

I think its important to note the the pope and cardinal speak only of universal access to health care, not the universal PROVISION of healthcare. I have the right to go to the doctor and be treated. I don’t have the right to send someone else the bill, because it assumes that I have a right to their property. The Church cannot declare that one has a right to something that violates the rights of someone else.

The short citations from pope and the cardinal are articulations of some, but not all, principles of Catholic social justice teaching, not instructions on how to implement them. Those that propose that the federal government is primarily responsible for ensuring universal access to health care are embracing some principles of Catholic social justice teaching while disregarding the principles of Catholic social justice teaching that they simply don’t like. It’s a manifestation of cafeteria Catholicism.

 

[markomalley]

Health Justice should be a priority of governments.

Justice = giving the person what is due to him.

The question comes in whether a person is owed the servitude of a doctor. Whether a person is owed the fruits of your labor, my labor, and everybody else’s labor to pay the doctor for the doctor’s labor (if the doctor is not obliged to provide his labor outright).

In other words, it comes down to the rights of private property. Does justice demand that you, I, and everybody else have a portion of our property confiscated in order to pay for services provided to somebody else.

The answer to that question is no.

If the answer was yes, then that sets up division of classes which is a violation of the principle of solidarity.

Where the obligation comes in is through the principle of participation. I have an obligation to voluntarily share my excess with those who have need. To quote Pope Leo XIIIrivate ownership, as we have seen, is the natural right of man, and to exercise that right, especially as members of society, is not only lawful, but absolutely necessary… True, no one is commanded to distribute to others that which is required for his own needs and those of his household; nor even to give away what is reasonably required to keep up becomingly his condition in life, “for no one ought to live other than becomingly.” But, when what necessity demands has been supplied, and one’s standing fairly taken thought for, it becomes a duty to give to the indigent out of what remains over. “Of that which remaineth, give alms.” It is a duty, not of justice (save in extreme cases), but of Christian charity - a duty not enforced by human law…

Rerum Novarum 22
​

That is the principle of Participation working to support Solidarity, recognizing the Universal Destination of Goods and the Preferential Option of the Poor.

Big government solutions take us the opposite way of establishing a sense of solidarity among peoples, recognizing the universal destination of goods and the preferential option for the poor.

No less an authority that Cardinal Turkson, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, has made that very point:In a recent interview with CNA, Cardinal Turkson said he has learned from past experience that the Church’s justice and peace terminology often needs clarification for an American Catholic audience. Key terms used by the Vatican — such as “social justice” and “gift” — are not always understood the way the Vatican intends, he said.
"We found out that some of the vocabulary which is just taken for granted and used freely may not always have the same sense or may have had some nuances which sometimes are missed because of the way the terms are used in the American political context,” Cardinal Turkson said in a Jan. 12 interview at the council’s offices in Rome.
(snip)
Cardinal Turkson explained that in the Church’s thinking, social justice involves citizens’ obligations and responsibilities to ensure fairness and opportunity in their communities and societies.
While this may include the adoption of specific government policies and programs, the emphasis in Catholic social teaching is on the obligations that flow from citizens’ relationships in societies.
(snip)
“Respecting, understanding and fulfilling those demands constitute our justice,” he said. “It would be useful if we just observed our sense of justice as our ability to fulfill the demands of the relationships in which we stand.”
This is in contrast to socialism, he explained, which is an ideology in which private property and private interests are totally placed in the service of government policies.
What the Pope proposes in “Caritas in Veritate,” said Cardinal Turkson, is “achieving the common good without sacrificing personal, private interests, aspirations and desires.”
Cardinal Turkson said the Council was also surprised that the Pope’s concept of the “gift,” was perceived in some circles as encouraging government welfare handouts.
In “Caritas in Veritate,” Pope Benedict described the concept of “gift” as a way to understand God’s love for men and women in his gift of life and his gift of Jesus.
You may be interested in reading the Zenit inverview with His Eminence from last November (part 1 and part 2) as well as the CNA article summarizing their Jan 2011 interview with him.

 

[ProVobis]

What I find unacceptable is that it is nearly impossible to buy insurance if you are unemployed and that you cannot buy insurance from competitive companies across state borders.

Aside from the state-sponsored, private-administered programs, there are no group insurance programs available unless they’re employer-based. Only thing available is individual medical insurance, which is generally more expensive if you can get it at all.

As far as purchasing across state borders, the problem with that is that the feds would probably need to regulate the sales and administration of those purchases and claims made. Right now all insurance companies are regulated by the states and out-of-state purchasers would not have the same protections as in-state purchasers of such insurance. But that could make it cheaper if you’re willing to take that risk.

 

[ProVobis]

Insurance companies would make money any way you cut it. Whether everybody is approved or everybody except those in perfect health are denied.

This is true. Companies don’t make money on very sick individuals. It has to be group insurance (where the risk is spread) or nothing.

What I find very ironic is that people who have major problems with government-run healthcare have no problem at all with government-run flood programs. Because of these catastrophic costs, insurance companies have found it almost impossible to make money on selling flood insurance; in fact I doubt if you can even find a company who could sell you any at all. Yet there is no public outcry such as you hear when a public healthcare option is attempted.

 

[rlg94086]

This is true. Companies don’t make money on very sick individuals. It has to be group insurance (where the risk is spread) or nothing.

What I find very ironic is that **people who have major problems with government-run healthcare have no problem at all with government-run flood programs. **Because of these catastrophic costs, insurance companies have found it almost impossible to make money on selling flood insurance; in fact I doubt if you can even find a company who could sell you any at all. Yet there is no public outcry such as you hear when a public healthcare option is attempted.

First of all, that is quite an assumption on your part. Secondly, single-payer health coverage is much more far reaching than flood coverage.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

First of all, that is quite an assumption on your part. Secondly, single-payer health coverage is much more far reaching than flood coverage.

I think it is critical to point out the difference between Universal Access to healthcare and Universal Provisioning of healthcare.

Access: The opportunity or right to make use of something
Provision: The act of providing or supplying something.

You have the right to walk into McDonald’s and order a Quarter Pounder with Cheese (access). They are under no obligation to give it to you for free (provision), because you cannot make the case that you have a right to their property without compensation. Until you compensate McDonald’s for the QPwC, it is their property.

 

[ishii]

Ishii, you mean like in the days when a gal of gas was < $1. I remember those days The attendant would even wash the windshield! Seriously though I like some technology as well as the next guy. Without it, I would never have met my good friend Ishii. But besides greed, you don’t think technology has had an effect on the economy? We go to the bank and use a machine. We go to the airport and use a machine. We purchase tickets to an event and print them ourselves. You can go to Walmart and scan your groceries yourself. And on and on. That was my only point. That technology has had an impact on jobs. Yet those who can most afford to, don’t seem to want to pay higher taxes for any domestic govt programs. Not for healthcare, or to improve access to education, or what have you. People only seem to want cuts without additional revenue. So now what?

The advances in technology, particularly in the 80’s and 90’s helped the economy immensely by improving efficiency - which helped increase economic growth and jobs. Someone has to develop and build, maintain all the different machines we now use and the ones who educate themselves and stay ahead of the curve, who learn new technologies, etc. will have an easier time of it than others. Take auto repair: in the old days cars were relatively simple and just about anyone who learned the basics could learn to be a mechanic and fix them. Now with all of the computers and electronics involved they aren’t called mechanics but technicians and they all have licenses and certifications that they got by formal education at a vocational tech or community college. And they make good money. But you’re right - some fall through the cracks and lose out and that is why we have a safety net to help out - to a certain extent. You may be surprised the know that I believe in a safety net - I’m not a libertarian. Advances in technology has created more jobs. The key is to learn job skills that will give you opportunities. Nice to talk to you again.

Ishii

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Where in Catholic social teaching can someone find the “cafeteria” option where they can ignore the principle of subsidiarity? If that’s not there then you’re saying the pope and a cardinal are flagrantly disregarding the social justice teaching of the Church by throwing the principle of subsidiarity under the bus.

Actually, I am not saying the Pope and a Cardinal are flagrantly disregarding anything. I am merely trying to understand this teaching, by example of what they said to the WHO. I can see those who disagree with universal health care feel confident they understand what the men of the Church said. The problem is, I also believe I understand what they’ve said and I disagree with those who disagree with universal health care.

I go to scriptures and read the teachings of Christ, to compare with what is being taught for my own understanding. I cannot see anywhere that Christ put qualifications on his teachings that exclude any resource available to His followers to accomplish what His intentions were. Personally, I do not believe it’s acceptable to place money, or the economy, above the importance of His teaching. I believe we are being asked to give, and that is in line with what Christ taught.

As I’ve said, I think the problem is that people attempt to ‘politicize’ the Church and His Church is not political. There is no left, or right, there is only His kingdom and it’s correct over everything ‘earthly’. People seem to want to politicize the Church to make themselves appear right, or justified, in their decisions. We all will answer to Him, and I’m comfortable with my view on this issue.

When we have two opposing views, without a definitive explanation from the men of the Church, how can one side accuse the other of trying to find a ‘cafeteria’ option? It appears to me that it could possibly be applied to the opposing view.

 

[gamewell45]

Maybe companies open up their books to unions, but I sure wouldn’t if I had any choice at all.

I’m probably in little danger of unionization because there almost are none in this part of the state. They just never get voted in, and it’s a very conservative area. But my partners and I have already decided that if we somehow get hit by “card check” someday, we’ll up our technology and do the work ourselves without staff other than ourselves. We would probably make less and work harder, but we could do it. And we would do it, too, before we opened our books up to union people. What would we bargain about? That they think I make too much and ought to give it to staff people? When my partners and I bear all the risk, borrow the money, put our own livelihoods at risk, sign our names and our spouses names to promissory notes, equip the place, I would do that? No, never.

We pay 100% of our employees’ health insurance, and intend to keep doing it until Obamacare makes it impossible to continue. Then we’ll do what we can afford to do as long as we can afford to do it. If we can’t afford employees anymore at some point, we just won’t have them.

As long as your employees are happy with their terms and conditions of employment, you shouldn’t worry too much about being hit with a card check or petition to organzie. If however you did get hit with the above and then decided to lay off everyone, the union and/or employees could file a charge with the NLRB and if they could prove that the layoff was as a direct result of union activities, the NLRB would most likely order them reinstated with full back pay and issue an order to bargain. The best thing to do in that situation would be to sit down with the union, explain to them your concerns and work out a deal where both sides are satisfied. The union is not going to ask to see your books unless you tell them that your company is broke; in that case if you open up the books (and if your truly broke, then it shouldn’t be much of an issue) and let them examine them, they’ll work with you.

BTW, notwithstanding the above, it seems at face value that your company takes good care of the employees, particularly in view of the fact that you provide benefits at 100% of cost to them, so unionization is unlikely in your case. Its the company’s that don’t provide and have lousy working conditions that might be subject to unionization long term.

 

[gamewell45]

I have worked in union environments before and have found out something rather scary: if the employees like you as a manager and believe you act fairly toward them, they are actually more afraid of the union steward than they are of you. Why? Because the union steward will exact a price from them if they are seen to be putting out any more than the minimum effort required by the union contract.

I guess it would be safe to assume that attitudes vary from industry to industy.

In my profession both the union and company have formed a working partnership and attitudes you’ve described above are extremely rare or in some cases non-existent where I work. The employees are encouraged to be as productive as possible as both the company and union benefit from it. But most likely the work atomsphere at the workplace probably has a lot to do with the work ethic in the shop.

 

[CMatt25]

You may be surprised the know that I believe in a safety net - I’m not a libertarian.

Nice to talk to you again.
Ishii

Backatcha Ishii and yes that surprises me somewhat though I wouldn’t be surprised if your net is smaller than the one I believe in. On that I believe I can have faith with 100% absolute certainty based on our discussions. Peace.

 

[CMatt25]

If however you did get hit with the above and then decided to lay off everyone, the union and/or employees could file a charge with the NLRB and if they could prove that the layoff was as a direct result of union activities, the NLRB would most likely order them reinstated with full back pay and issue an order to bargain.

The union is not going to ask to see your books unless you tell them that your company is broke; in that case if you open up the books (and if your truly broke, then it shouldn’t be much of an issue) and let them examine them, they’ll work with you.

Gamewell, thank you for explaining to us how unions actually work. I then say God bless the NLRB in such a case. And true unless one has something to hide (such as saying they’re broke and they’re not) then opening the books in such a case indeed shouldn’t be much of a problem.

 

[1holycatholic]

Actually, I am not saying the Pope and a Cardinal are flagrantly disregarding anything. I am merely trying to understand this teaching, by example of what they said to the WHO. I can see those who disagree with universal health care feel confident they understand what the men of the Church said. The problem is, I also believe I understand what they’ve said and I disagree with those who disagree with universal health care.

I go to scriptures and read the teachings of Christ, to compare with what is being taught for my own understanding. ** I** cannot see anywhere that Christ put qualifications on his teachings that exclude any resource available to His followers to accomplish what His intentions were. Personally, I do not believe it’s acceptable to place money, or the economy, above the importance of His teaching. **I **believe we are being asked to give, and that is in line with what Christ taught.

As I’ve said, I think the problem is that people attempt to ‘politicize’ the Church and His Church is not political. There is no left, or right, there is only His kingdom and it’s correct over everything ‘earthly’. People seem to want to politicize the Church to make themselves appear right, or justified, in their decisions. We all will answer to Him, and I’m comfortable with my view on this issue.

When we have two opposing views, without a definitive explanation from the men of the Church, how can one side accuse the other of trying to find a ‘cafeteria’ option? It appears to me that it could possibly be applied to the opposing view.

Who is the authority, you or the Church? It appears as though you have thrown the social teaching and authority of the Church under the bus on based on your own personal interpretation of scripture as your sole rule of faith.

 

[rlg94086]

Backatcha Ishii and yes that surprises me somewhat though I wouldn’t be surprised if your net is smaller than the one I believe in. On that I believe I can have faith with 100% absolute certainty based on our discussions. Peace.

Like Ishii, I believe in a net…not a cocoon.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Who is the authority, you or the Church? It appears as though you have thrown the social teaching and authority of the Church under the bus on based on your own personal interpretation of scripture as your sole rule of faith.

The Church is the authority. I do those things when I see Catholics disagree with each other for a better understanding of what the Church is teaching. I am trying to see through a spiritual eye and not a ‘political’ eye.

I have thrown nothing under the bus and feel like you’re saying such things, like that and using the term ‘cafeteria’, solely as ad hominem.

As for my interpretation of scriptures, I feel confident it matches what the men of the Church said recently. I have asked what else it could mean, where scriptures indicated other things, etc. All I’ve received are ‘attacks’ like this post I’ve quoted. It concretes my belief that I am right and I believe is easy for others to see what is going on as well. People against a universal health care, for whatever reasons since they won’t say for what reasons, are manipulating what the men of the Church stated for what seems to be purely political, or secular, reasons.

 

[1holycatholic]

The Church is the authority. I do those things when I see Catholics disagree with each other for a better understanding of what the Church is teaching. I am trying to see through a spiritual eye and not a ‘political’ eye.

I have thrown nothing under the bus and feel like you’re saying such things, like that and using the term ‘cafeteria’, solely as ad hominem.

As for my interpretation of scriptures, I feel confident it matches what the men of the Church said recently. I have asked what else it could mean, where scriptures indicated other things, etc. All I’ve received are ‘attacks’ like this post I’ve quoted. It concretes my belief that I am right and I believe is easy for others to see what is going on as well. People against a universal health care, for whatever reasons since they won’t say for what reasons, are manipulating what the men of the Church stated for what seems to be purely political, or secular, reasons.

There is no ad-hominem, you’ve stated a position explicitly contrary to the principle of subsidiarity which is an inextricable part of the social justice teaching of the Church. In rejecting the principle of subsidiarity you’ve placed yourself in a position at odds with the pope and the cardinal that you cited. You can’t simply pick and choose the parts of Catholic social teaching that you like.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

There is no ad-hominem, you’ve stated a position explicitly contrary to the principle of subsidiarity which is an inextricable part of the social justice teaching of the Church. In rejecting the principle of subsidiarity you’ve placed yourself in a position at odds with the pope and the cardinal that you cited. You can’t simply pick and choose the parts of Catholic social teaching that you like.

I think that the pope’s call for universal access to health care is admirable and appropriate and the right function of government, as long as we properly understand it as access and not provisioning. I don’t think that the Pope is calling for free healthcare for all, because he doesn’t outline how it would be possible without violating subsidiarity and property rights.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There is no ad-hominem, you’ve stated a position explicitly contrary to the principle of subsidiarity which is an inextricable part of the social justice teaching of the Church. In rejecting the principle of subsidiarity you’ve placed yourself in a position at odds with the pope and the cardinal that you cited. You can’t simply pick and choose the parts of Catholic social teaching that you like.

This is my last post as it seems you’ve decided to ‘kill the messenger’, at the very least the subject is upsetting to you.

I only posted articles and the statement from the Pope and the Cardinal. If you find that contradicts the principle of subsidiarity, as you understand it to be, then your problem is not with me. I have not picked and chosen, I have found agreement with the Pope and the Cardinal, as I understand them.

The People of God, pilgrimaging on the torturous paths of history joins its efforts to those of so many other men and women of good will to give a truly human face to health systems. Health justice should be among the priorities of governments and international institutions.

“Justice requires guaranteed universal access to health care,” he said, adding that the provision of minimal levels of medical attention to all is “commonly accepted as a fundamental human right.”

Governments are obligated, therefore, to adopt the proper legislative, administrative and financial measures to provide such care along with other basic conditions that promote good health, such as food security, water and housing, the cardinal said.
…
The governments of richer nations with good health care available should practice more solidarity with their own disadvantaged citizens and help developing countries promote health care while trying to avoid a “paternalistic or humiliating” way of assisting, the cardinal said.

I can take correction, if you feel like finding Church documentation that specifically explains universal health care to be as you view it to be. I’ve requested this before, but nothing has been provided. Instead, as I say, I have been targeted for providing the information from several Catholic resources, that a couple of people have found issue with, so I provided the statements made by each.

Please note that the word ‘provision’ was specifically used.

 

[1holycatholic]

This is my last post as it seems you’ve decided to ‘kill the messenger’, at the very least the subject is upsetting to you.

I only posted articles and the statement from the Pope and the Cardinal. If you find that contradicts the principle of subsidiarity, as you understand it to be, then your problem is not with me. I have not picked and chosen, I have found agreement with the Pope and the Cardinal, as I understand them.

You’ve taken a few sentences out of context of the entirety of Catholic social doctrine and run with them conflating them with your desires into a mandate contrary to the social doctrine of the Church.

I can take correction, if you feel like finding Church documentation that specifically explains universal health care to be as you view it to be. I’ve requested this before, but nothing has been provided. Instead, as I say, I have been targeted for providing the information from several Catholic resources, that a couple of people have found issue with, so I provided the statements made by each.

Please note that the word ‘provision’ was specifically used.

You haven’t provided several Catholic resources, you’ve taken a couple of short quotes from bishops out of context and provided multiple links to dissenters.

You should become familiar with this document in its entirety:

COMPENDIUM
OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE
OF THE CHURCH

You aren’t going to find a particular plan for “provisioning” mandated, or even suggested by the Church because that’s not how the Church works. There is no Catholic version of Sharia.