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

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

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.

Sharia? Thank you for the intellectual discussion. It’s over for me and I have no desire to discuss the issue with you further. I’m halfway through another 24 hour shift, in the health care industry, which I believes gives me more insight on how things really work especially in a rural county where the majority of the population is without health insurance.

I believe it is you that have missed the context of what was said, and you’ve offered nothing of value to the discussion; quite the contrary with your ad hominem worded statements.

God Bless,

 

[Carlan]

It is extremely hard to penetrate closed minds.

I agree with Prodigal, you seem to be looking at universal health care from only a political point of view. You are not wanting to consider the moral issue, as pointed out, from a Christian prospective. Good night, and peace, Carlan

 

[1holycatholic]

Sharia? Thank you for the intellectual discussion. It’s over for me and I have no desire to discuss the issue with you further. I’m halfway through another 24 hour shift, in the health care industry, which I believes gives me more insight on how things really work especially in a rural county where the majority of the population is without health insurance.

I believe it is you that have missed the context of what was said, and you’ve offered nothing of value to the discussion; quite the contrary with your ad hominem worded statements.

God Bless,

Catholics are bound de fide tenenda to the Church teaching on subsidiarity. There are no employment based exceptions.

 

[ishii]

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

Yes, a net with time limits when appropriate. Unfortunately the liberal version of the safety net has become a cocoon in which more Americans have come to expect assistance without any effort on their part to improve themselves and their situation with hard work. We have become an entitlement society - and some of those who receive the entitlements are those who vote Republican. The entitlement society crosses party lines.

Ishii

 

[JimG]

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.

I expect if a unionization attempt is made in such a case, it won’t be about pay or working conditions; it will be a union power grab. And card check will enable the union to browbeat employees into checking off the card with no secret ballot, no chance to think about it or change their mind. And you are saying that if the company simply decided to do without employees other than the partners, the NLRB could force it to hire them back? Talk about a power grab.

 

[JimG]

Yes, we can have universal health care. Just turn all physicians, nurses, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and all other health care workers into Federal employees.

Because of the current monetary crisis, pay scales may have to be lowered, however.

Oh, and if half of all doctors decide to retire at once, can the NLRB force them to remain on the job? (From what I’ve heard, a great many of them are already at that point, even without having universal health care.)

 

[gamewell45]

I expect if a unionization attempt is made in such a case, it won’t be about pay or working conditions; it will be a union power grab. And card check will enable the union to browbeat employees into checking off the card with no secret ballot, no chance to think about it or change their mind. And you are saying that if the company simply decided to do without employees other than the partners, the NLRB could force it to hire them back? Talk about a power grab.

If the employees weren’t upset about money or working conditions, the union would have no support whatsoever and thus, no “power grab”. Furthermore the company would not be required to agree to a card check; rather they could force an election which would give them up to 45 days to intimidate/coerce/threaten (terms for convincing) the employees that the union is the eternal bogeyman and if they know whats good, they’ll vote down the union.

If the company decided to unload the employees in order to avoid unionization and the employees could prove that it was done solely to avoid unionization, then yes, the NLRB could require the employer to rehire, with back pay, all employees and give an order to bargain.

The bottom line is, if the employees vote in the union, don’t fight it; rather form a working partnership; my company did that and its worked out well for both sides.

 

[gamewell45]

Yes, we can have universal health care. Just turn all physicians, nurses, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and all other health care workers into Federal employees.

Because of the current monetary crisis, pay scales may have to be lowered, however.

Oh, and if half of all doctors decide to retire at once, can the NLRB force them to remain on the job? (From what I’ve heard, a great many of them are already at that point, even without having universal health care.)

If, under your scenario (which sounds like a Domesday event) half of all doctors in the United States decided to “retire”, there are plenty of people who’d take their places. Tho’ I have to admit, I highly doubt that the scenario you’ve painted would ever occur. Most of them are not in it for the money; rather to help people.

 

[JimG]

If, under your scenario (which sounds like a Domesday event) half of all doctors in the United States decided to “retire”, there are plenty of people who’d take their places. Tho’ I have to admit, I highly doubt that the scenario you’ve painted would ever occur. Most of them are not in it for the money; rather to help people.

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.

 

[rlg94086]

Sharia? Thank you for the intellectual discussion. It’s over for me and I have no desire to discuss the issue with you further. I’m halfway through another 24 hour shift, in the health care industry, which I believes gives me more insight on how things really work especially in a rural county where the majority of the population is without health insurance.

I believe it is you that have missed the context of what was said, and you’ve offered nothing of value to the discussion; quite the contrary with your ad hominem worded statements.

God Bless,

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church has no value for you? You really ought to give it a read. It is available in print, if you prefer books to online reading. It is an excellent resource to understand what the Church teaches regarding social doctrine and the different roles of society (i.e. government vs. private charity).

 

[rlg94086]

Yes, a net with time limits when appropriate. Unfortunately the liberal version of the safety net has become a cocoon in which more Americans have come to expect assistance without any effort on their part to improve themselves and their situation with hard work. We have become an entitlement society - and some of those who receive the entitlements are those who vote Republican. The entitlement society crosses party lines.

Ishii

Also, the nets should be handled as close to the individual as possible, in line with Church teaching on subsidiarity. In the US, the Constitution sets this up nicely. Very few things are to be done at the federal level. The people of the respective states are to determine what works best for them. Within the states, some things are best handled at the county or municipal level. Unfortunately, our society has moved far from that.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Yes, a net with time limits when appropriate. Unfortunately the liberal version of the safety net has become a cocoon in which more Americans have come to expect assistance without any effort on their part to improve themselves and their situation with hard work. We have become an entitlement society - and some of those who receive the entitlements are those who vote Republican. The entitlement society crosses party lines.

Ishii

Exactly. I think a safety net is appropriate. It should provide emergency basics…temporarily at the most local level possible. That would be consistent with subsidiarity.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church has no value for you? You really ought to give it a read. It is available in print, if you prefer books to online reading. It is an excellent resource to understand what the Church teaches regarding social doctrine and the different roles of society (i.e. government vs. private charity).

Please show me where I stated ‘The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church has not value to me’? See, assumptive statements, without any basis, do not draw me into believing I am incorrect on the statements made by the Pope and the Cardinal. These baseless and assumptive type statements are being directed at me because I provided statements made by men of the Church. If what I wrote is being misinterpreted, or taken out of context, what else being offered on this thread is being taken out of context? There appears to be an interpretation that we must protect the government through the teachings of the Church. That’s honestly how it appears, or that interpretations are biased for political/secular purposes.

No one is taking time to explain another meaning to what they’ve said, or offered a more definitive explanation by the Pope, or Cardinal. Yet, in the absence of explanation from the Pope and Cardinal I am automatically wrong? I do not imagine that the Pope or Cardinal are incorrect, nor do I believe them to be going against Church doctrines. If these statements are being misunderstood, there are possibilities that other documents from the Church are being misunderstood, or being viewed with a biased eye for political purposes. As I’ve said, the Church is not political.

 

[rlg94086]

No one is taking time to explain another meaning to what they’ve said, or offered a more definitive explanation by the Pope, or Cardinal. Yet, in the absence of explanation from the Pope and Cardinal I am automatically wrong? I do not imagine that the Pope or Cardinal are incorrect, nor do I believe them to be going against Church doctrines. **If these statements are being misunderstood, there are possibilities that other documents from the Church are being misunderstood, or being viewed with a biased eye for political purposes. ** As I’ve said, the Church is not political.

Sure. I accept that you may be doing that. Have you read the Compendium? Are you familiar with the teaching of subsidiarity and the role of the State?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Sure. I accept that you may be doing that. Have you read the Compendium? Are you familiar with the teaching of subsidiarity and the role of the State?

Okay, another one who persists in making ‘assumptive’ remarks, more precisely twisting what I say, and I am not as educated as the men of the Church and write pretty straight forward offering explanations when I see what I write is misinterpreted or twisted. How much easier is it to miss the context of what the much more educated write?

I believe the Pope and the Cardinal could explain how THEIR remarks are in line with the Compendium. I’ve asked for everyone to provide other remarks from the Pope or Cardinal on the topic we are discussing that would show me the error in the context I read their statements in. It appears to be that everyone is saying I shouldn’t read things through a spiritual eye, but a scholarly eye. I’m sorry but I am limited in that capacity.

Please, if you can’t show me where clarifications are made on the direct topic of health care from the Pope and Cardinal, then stop the assumptive remarks that have more than a hint of ‘inflaming’, or attacking, me.

I’d be more than happy to discuss explanations of context, word by word, sentence by sentence, or paragraph by paragraph of what they wrote. I am not above making a mistake, but it takes more than one saying ‘you’re wrong’ to convince me.

I believe if we dig deeper into this topic, as discussed by the men of the Church, we might find a way that the two teachings work together in their explanations. Seeing how what I write is taken out of context, or misunderstood, I’m not sure if those who seem to be against a universal health care system, as stated by the Pope and Cardinal to include ‘government’, are taking the writings on this subject as they may, or may not, work together with doctrine. I am only trying to spiritually, and logically, discern.

I don’t believe ‘go read this, or did you read this’ helps in light of the fact we disagree on the most recent statements from the men of the Church. I don’t believe we can assume to know how the two ‘teachings’ may, or may not, work together according to the ‘teachers’. So, one last time, please provide more discussion on the topic of universal health care from the men of the Church. Feel free to use scriptures if you see how they apply.

Assumptive ‘twists’, or ad hominem worded remarks, will no longer be responded to by myself and I think you should consider how they may be viewed by others as to whether or not those type remarks adds, or subtracts, from the validity of one’s view.

God Bless,

 

[rlg94086]

Okay, another one who persists in making ‘assumptive’ remarks, more precisely twisting what I say, and I am not as educated as the men of the Church and write pretty straight forward offering explanations when I see what I write is misinterpreted or twisted. How much easier is it to miss the context of what the much more educated write?

I believe the Pope and the Cardinal could explain how THEIR remarks are in line with the Compendium. I’ve asked for everyone to provide other remarks from the Pope or Cardinal on the topic we are discussing that would show me the error in the context I read their statements in. It appears to be that everyone is saying I shouldn’t read things through a spiritual eye, but a scholarly eye. I’m sorry but I am limited in that capacity.

Please, if you can’t show me where clarifications are made on the direct topic of health care from the Pope and Cardinal, then stop the assumptive remarks that have more than a hint of ‘inflaming’, or attacking, me.

I’d be more than happy to discuss explanations of context, word by word, sentence by sentence, or paragraph by paragraph of what they wrote. I am not above making a mistake, but it takes more than one saying ‘you’re wrong’ to convince me.

I believe if we dig deeper into this topic, as discussed by the men of the Church, we might find a way that the two teachings work together in their explanations. Seeing how what I write is taken out of context, or misunderstood, I’m not sure if those who seem to be against a universal health care system, as stated by the Pope and Cardinal to include ‘government’, are taking the writings on this subject as they may, or may not, work together with doctrine. I am only trying to spiritually, and logically, discern.

I don’t believe ‘go read this, or did you read this’ helps in light of the fact we disagree on the most recent statements from the men of the Church. I don’t believe we can assume to know how the two ‘teachings’ may, or may not, work together according to the ‘teachers’. So, one last time, please provide more discussion on the topic of universal health care from the men of the Church. Feel free to use scriptures if you see how they apply.

Assumptive ‘twists’, or ad hominem worded remarks, will no longer be responded to by myself and I think you should consider how they may be viewed by others as to whether or not those type remarks adds, or subtracts, from the validity of one’s view.

God Bless,

I haven’t tried to twist anything you have written, and I don’t find your posts particularly helpful to the discussion. I agree that the principles of subsidiarity and the Church teaching on universal healthcare should “work together.” That is why I oppose a large, federal, bureaucratic health care plan. I haven’t seen anything from the Pope saying that a large, federal, bureaucratic health care plan is preferred. The US Bishops have a variety of opinions on the subject.

I’m sorry if you don’t find my recommendation to read the Compendium as helpful. It really would be. If you would like to have a discussion about the issues, learning what the Church teaches is a good place to start.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I haven’t tried to twist anything you have written, and I don’t find your posts particularly helpful to the discussion. I agree that the principles of subsidiarity and the Church teaching on universal healthcare should “work together.” That is why I oppose a large, federal, bureaucratic health care plan. I haven’t seen anything from the Pope saying that a large, federal, bureaucratic health care plan is preferred. The US Bishops have a variety of opinions on the subject.

I’m sorry if you don’t find my recommendation to read the Compendium as helpful. It really would be. If you would like to have a discussion about the issues, learning what the Church teaches is a good place to start.

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.

While it does not explicitly say ‘preferred’, it does say ‘priorities’ of government.

In his own written statement, Bertone had strong words in support of the need for governments to take care of all citizens, especially children, the elderly, the poor and immigrants.

“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.

Again, while it does not explicitly say ‘preferred’, it does say ‘Governments are obligated, therefore, to adopt the proper legislative, administrative and financial measures to provide such care…’

Government involvement is not excluded, in my opinion.

I have read many documents on what the Church teaches. Where we are at impasse is, is it possible the most recent statements coincide with Church teachings in the minds of the men of the Church?

I realize the U.S. Bishops have a variety of opinions on the subject. What I presented was communication from the Pope and the Vatican Secretary of state. In the hierarchy of the Church, the Pope’s opinion is the one that means the most to me, as it should all Catholics, including the U.S. Bishops.

 

[rlg94086]

While it does not explicitly say ‘preferred’, it does say ‘priorities’ of government.

Of course, it is a priority. Does that mean the “government” should be the one to administer health care universally?
Prodigal Son1:

Again, while it does not explicitly say ‘preferred’, it does say ‘Governments are obligated, therefore, to adopt the proper legislative, administrative and financial measures to provide such care…’

“Proper” being an important word. What is “proper” in the light of Church teaching on subsidiarity? Considering the US Constitution, which “government” is responsible to legislate and administer healthcare initiatives for its citizens? Federal or state?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Of course, it is a priority. Does that mean the “government” should be the one to administer health care universally?

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.

Being obligated to adopt proper legislative, ADMINISTRATIVE, and financial, appears to say ‘administer’, to me.

“Proper” being an important word. What is “proper” in the light of Church teaching on subsidiarity? Considering the US Constitution, which “government” is responsible to legislate and administer healthcare initiatives for its citizens? Federal or state?

The Pope said that adequate medical attention was one of the “inalienable rights” of man. Now how do we apply being obligated to adopt proper legislative, administrative and financial to provide such care that is an inalienable right?

Below is something else, included in the Pope’s message. I see it as defining ‘proper’ and does not seem to have any exclusions.

To bend down as the Good Samaritan to the wounded man abandoned on the side of the road is to fulfill that “greater justice” that Jesus asks of his disciples and acted in his life, because love is the fulfillment of the Law. The Christian community, following in the footsteps of its Lord, has carried out the mandate to go out into the world “to teach and cure the sick” and over the centuries “has strongly realized the service to the sick and suffering as an integral part of its mission” (John Paul II, motu proprio “Dolentium Hominum,” No. 1), of witnessing integral salvation, which is health of soul and body.

Federal, state, county, or municipality, all are government. Why would the Pope state government and exclude any one, or the other? In the US, the people are the government. We call ourselves a Christian nation. We, the government and each individually, are obligated. His message was delivered to the ‘nations’, without exclusion.

Isn’t it a Christian goal to convert ALL to Him? If we succeeded on that, would this discussion be necessary, because wouldn’t we all use whatever avenue necessary to fulfill His teachings? I don’t see how anyone, in that scenario, would find objection to providing to ALL. Until that scenario is achieved, we show His teachings by our example and compliance with His teachings, without the exclusion of anyone. Isn’t that proper?

 

[rlg94086]

Being obligated to adopt proper legislative, ADMINISTRATIVE, and financial, appears to say ‘administer’, to me.

The Pope said that adequate medical attention was one of the “inalienable rights” of man. Now how do we apply being obligated to adopt proper legislative, administrative and financial to provide such care that is an inalienable right?

Below is something else, included in the Pope’s message. I see it as defining ‘proper’ and does not seem to have any exclusions.

Federal, state, county, or municipality, all are government. Why would the Pope state government and exclude any one, or the other? In the US, the people are the government. We call ourselves a Christian nation. We, the government and each individually, are obligated. His message was delivered to the ‘nations’, without exclusion.

Isn’t it a Christian goal to convert ALL to Him? If we succeeded on that, would this discussion be necessary, because wouldn’t we all use whatever avenue necessary to fulfill His teachings? I don’t see how anyone, in that scenario, would find objection to providing to ALL. Until that scenario is achieved, we show His teachings by our example and compliance with His teachings, without the exclusion of anyone. Isn’t that proper?

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.