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

[rlg94086]

Note that access to basic healthcare is a fundamental human right under the principle of the common good, because good health is essential to the well being of each person and all persons.

Absolutely. And, nothing you posted negates the clear teaching on subsidiarity. So, considering such teaching AND the structure of our government under the Constitution, the people of each state should determine the best way to accomplish universal healthcare within their state. I know what I would favor in my state, and it would only involve a little bit of tweaking.

The way I see it, the current healthcare system falls short of living up to the common good in that access to it is restricted according to one’s ability to pay. Even “Obamacare” falls short, because it still requires one to buy insurance (expensive in a for-profit system!) but at least it takes some steps to alleviate some of the more obvious faults in the current system.

The “current system” is not a nationally consistent “system,” nor does it need to be.

 

[markomalley]

I believe Catholics with a conservative or libertarian ideology are wont to emphasize subsidiarity while ignoring or downplaying other equally vital tenets of the Church’s social doctrine because subsidiarity, considered apart from other principles, can be used as kind of a Catholic fig leaf to cover their desire to cut social safety net programs and health benefits. The Federal government shouldn’t be doing it because it’s the highest level of government and, since there are lower levels of government, then the lower levels should be doing these things. So the argument goes. But are the lower levels of government, at this time and under these circumstances, capable of performing these functions and at the same time living up to Catholic teaching, which holds, as my signature cites, that healthcare, as a basic human right, should be cheap or even free of charge? I wish this question would be addressed, incorporating not just subsidiarity, but the the common good, the universal destination of goods, and solidarity.

I agree almost completely with you. But let me correct what you wrote just a bit:
I believe Catholics with a liberal or socialist ideology are wont to emphasize **“the preferential option for the poor” **while ignoring or downplaying other equally vital tenets of the Church’s social doctrine because the preferential option for the poor, considered apart from other principles, can be used as kind of a Catholic fig leaf to cover their desire to implement the social assistance state and eliminate private property. Intermediate social units shouldn’t be doing it because they aren’t the highest level of government and since “subsidiarity has already been tried” [NB: hardly] and, since that’s the way they do it in other countries with socialist governments, it must be right.. So the argument goes.
I, for one, don’t agree with any level of government being involved in the delivery of health care. I also don’t think there should be large-scale health insurance companies acting as a privatized bureaucracy either.

You mention solidarity, which is all well and good. But solidarity starts at the person-to-person level, not at the State-to-person level. As a physician, with a view toward solidarity, I should be willing to see patients. If they are able to pay, all well and good. If they are not, then I should be willing to accept what they can afford. Patients, in solidarity with the physicians, should not attempt to cheat the doctors out of their wages (that principle of solidarity works both ways and, if actually practiced in our society, would eliminate a whole lot of cheating).

You did not mention the principle of **participation **(something that I find lacking in many leftist arguments about social doctrine). The principle of participation states that it is everybody’s responsibility to get their hands dirty. You can’t just shuck it off to a government bureaucrat or some “program” and feel good about it. You (as in each individual one of us) need to go in there and feed the poor, clothe the naked, heal the sick, and so on. In doing so, we see other people as human beings worthy of the dignity that this status affords. In a large, centralized system (be it a privatized insurance scheme or a government bureaucracy), business rules, parameters, and operating manuals cover how people interact. Do you meet this criterion? Then you qualify for this benefit. Did you perform this service, then you qualify for this reimbursement. That strips the essential humanity out of everything. Participation at all levels is the key.

As Christians, we should try to work toward a civilization of love, where the love of Christ pervades everything we do. Standing in solidarity with our brother and actually no kidding participating in the process (not just funding it, operating it, or benefiting from it) helps us manifest that civilization of love. Taking action with a view toward subsidiarity always helps ensure that this work is done as close to the personal level as is possible. And so on.

But it’s not just subsidiarity. Solidarity and Participation are also intrinsic to the process.

And I could go on tying in the universal destination of goods, the preferential option for the poor, and the common good, but I would hope I’ve made the point.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I agree almost completely with you. But let me correct what you wrote just a bit:
I believe Catholics with a liberal or socialist ideology are wont to emphasize **“the preferential option for the poor” **while ignoring or downplaying other equally vital tenets of the Church’s social doctrine because the preferential option for the poor, considered apart from other principles, can be used as kind of a Catholic fig leaf to cover their desire to implement the social assistance state and eliminate private property. Intermediate social units shouldn’t be doing it because they aren’t the highest level of government and since “subsidiarity has already been tried” [NB: hardly] and, since that’s the way they do it in other countries with socialist governments, it must be right.. So the argument goes.
I, for one, don’t agree with any level of government being involved in the delivery of health care. I also don’t think there should be large-scale health insurance companies acting as a privatized bureaucracy either.

You mention solidarity, which is all well and good. But solidarity starts at the person-to-person level, not at the State-to-person level. As a physician, with a view toward solidarity, I should be willing to see patients. If they are able to pay, all well and good. If they are not, then I should be willing to accept what they can afford. Patients, in solidarity with the physicians, should not attempt to cheat the doctors out of their wages (that principle of solidarity works both ways and, if actually practiced in our society, would eliminate a whole lot of cheating).

You did not mention the principle of **participation **(something that I find lacking in many leftist arguments about social doctrine). The principle of participation states that it is everybody’s responsibility to get their hands dirty. You can’t just shuck it off to a government bureaucrat or some “program” and feel good about it. You (as in each individual one of us) need to go in there and feed the poor, clothe the naked, heal the sick, and so on. In doing so, we see other people as human beings worthy of the dignity that this status affords. In a large, centralized system (be it a privatized insurance scheme or a government bureaucracy), business rules, parameters, and operating manuals cover how people interact. Do you meet this criterion? Then you qualify for this benefit. Did you perform this service, then you qualify for this reimbursement. That strips the essential humanity out of everything. Participation at all levels is the key.

As Christians, we should try to work toward a civilization of love, where the love of Christ pervades everything we do. Standing in solidarity with our brother and actually no kidding participating in the process (not just funding it, operating it, or benefiting from it) helps us manifest that civilization of love. Taking action with a view toward subsidiarity always helps ensure that this work is done as close to the personal level as is possible. And so on.

But it’s not just subsidiarity. Solidarity and Participation are also intrinsic to the process.

And I could go on tying in the universal destination of goods, the preferential option for the poor, and the common good, but I would hope I’ve made the point.

If this is the solution, why hasn’t it been accomplished or, at the very least, attempted? Seems there are all type of solutions being viewed as we enter into a trial attempt.

One accuses me of saying something I didn’t, and then looks to find something they can claim ‘offensive’. Now, we see the ‘leftist’ term slung around again, before making it to Christian responsibility? Too much irony…

 

[1holycatholic]

I don’t recall making any accusations; just an observation based on my perusal of posts here and articles in other places.

i.e. innuendo

Is it not true that Catholic conservatives and libertarians have applauded efforts to cut social safety nets wherever they exist, be they on the Federal or State levels? Is that merely a “vile accusation”?

The federal government providing a social safety net is contrary to Catholic social doctrine. Are you mocking orthodox Catholics?

Is it not true that subsidiarity is brought into discussions by libertarians an awful lot, while, say, the common good is usually ignored?

No that’s not true. Subsidiarity is brought into the discussion when proposals are offered that reject the principle of subsidiarity.

Perhaps you object to my use of the term “fig leaf”? If so, then I apologize.

Yes, your use of sacred imagery to smear others was objectionable.

I’ll just say again that the Church’s social doctrine needs to be studied in its entirety.

Lets.

Note that access to basic healthcare is a fundamental human right under the principle of the common good, because good health is essential to the well being of each person and all persons.

No one is claiming otherwise.

The way I see it, the current healthcare system falls short of living up to the common good in that access to it is restricted according to one’s ability to pay. Even “Obamacare” falls short, because it still requires one to buy insurance (expensive in a for-profit system!) but at least it takes some steps to alleviate some of the more obvious faults in the current system.

:banghead:
**“Obamacare” falls short because it violates the principle of subsidiarity.
**
The Church’s social doctrine not only needs to be “studied in its entirety”, it needs to be applied in its entirety as well.

 

[gnjsdad]

Absolutely. And, nothing you posted negates the clear teaching on subsidiarity.

It isn’t my intent to negate the Church’s teaching on subsidiarity, only to point out that subsidiarity isn’t the only doctrine that’s relevant to the healthcare discussion.

As the Compendium well states…

**351. **The action of the State and of other public authorities must be consistent with the principle of subsidiarity and create situations favourable to the free exercise of economic activity. It must also be inspired by the principle of solidarity and establish limits for the autonomy of the parties in order to defend those who are weaker.[733] Solidarity without subsidiarity, in fact, can easily degenerate into a “Welfare State”, while subsidiarity without solidarity runs the risk of encouraging forms of self-centred localism. In order to respect both of these fundamental principles, the State’s intervention in the economic environment must be neither invasive nor absent, but commensurate with society’s real needs. “The State has a duty to sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are lacking or by supporting them in moments of crisis. The State has the further right to intervene when particular monopolies create delays or obstacles to development. In addition to the tasks of harmonizing and guiding development, in exceptional circumstances the State can also exercise a substitute function”.[734]

 

[rlg94086]

It isn’t my intent to negate the Church’s teaching on subsidiarity, only to point out that subsidiarity isn’t the only doctrine that’s relevant to the healthcare discussion.

As the Compendium well states…

**351. **The action of the State and of other public authorities must be consistent with the principle of subsidiarity and create situations favourable to the free exercise of economic activity. It must also be inspired by the principle of solidarity and establish limits for the autonomy of the parties in order to defend those who are weaker.[733] Solidarity without subsidiarity, in fact, can easily degenerate into a “Welfare State”, while subsidiarity without solidarity runs the risk of encouraging forms of self-centred localism. In order to respect both of these fundamental principles, the State’s intervention in the economic environment must be neither invasive nor absent, but commensurate with society’s real needs. “The State has a duty to sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are lacking or by supporting them in moments of crisis. The State has the further right to intervene when particular monopolies create delays or obstacles to development. In addition to the tasks of harmonizing and guiding development, in exceptional circumstances the State can also exercise a substitute function”.[734]

Sure. I know that’s been posted at least once (by me) in this thread. As I said before, you have completely missed the point of subsidiarity being brought up. No one has said it stands alone in Catholic teaching.

Why not answer my questions about trusting voters in the states? It wasn’t rhetorical. I would really like to know why you don’t believe in the ability of the people to determine what is best for their state. What is it that you believe requires healthcare to be universalized at the national versus state level?

 

[Ridgerunner]

If this is the solution, why hasn’t it been accomplished or, at the very least, attempted? Seems there are all type of solutions being viewed as we enter into a trial attempt.

I’m not sure this is entirely fair. There was no hue and cry over health insurance until fairly recently; probably because the vast majority of people had it. Bush did add “Part D” and of course a lot of people raised a fuss over that.

Those who opposed Obamacare questioned the need for a national program. We have seen all kinds of numbers. I think the highest I saw was 30% of the population with no coverage. Just recently, I read 14%. Always there were questions about who, exactly, didn’t have insurance of some kind. If you added up estimates of the young who don’t want it; illegals, those who were between jobs, and those who could apply for Medicaid retroactively, it nearly covered the gap. I also heard Obama estimate that even under Obamacare, some 20% would still not be covered. So, 14% aren’t covered now, but 20% won’t be covered under Obamacare???

I realize I’m juggling the numbers in that last statement, but the reality is that nobody has any real idea how many people who want coverage can’t get it because they can’t qualify for it or can’t afford it. And in the face of that, we change the whole system, essentially turning the whole thing, and at monumental cost, over to HHS & Kathleen Sebelius, and with absolutely no protection against public funding of abortion or conscience protection?

Now, we are, as we all know, in a recession; one that, for various reasons, seems pretty intractable. Necessarily, with a high unemployment rate, we’re going to have higher numbers of uninsured because most people had employment-based insurance.

So, it really isn’t right to say that attention is being focused on it only because Obama wanted federal control of healthcare and very expensive subsidies, as his flagship accomplishment. But, without doubt, anytime any president and his supporters make a big issue out of something and push major changes through (particularly if the majority doesn’t want them) it’s an attention-getter. Cap and trade imposed by EPA will also be an attention getter when it’s imposed. Anytime you turn something on its head, people notice and wonder why, if the situation is as dire as represented, nothing but an atom bomb would serve to deal with it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’m not sure this is entirely fair. There was no hue and cry over health insurance until fairly recently; probably because the vast majority of people had it. Bush did add “Part D” and of course a lot of people raised a fuss over that.

Medical costs are out of control, just as insurance costs are. People make choices to go without treatments for the financial sakes of their families, or because their credit rating prevents them from being able to finance life extending treatments. Consider, also, that some people have to ‘fight’ some insurance companies to provide the coverage they pay for.

If access to appropriate health care wasn’t as dire as represented then why is the Holy Father and other men of the Church speaking out about it? Then when they do speak out, with specific statements, it can’t be taken in the specific context as stated because that would be against Church doctrines and anyone that reads it in that fashion is against Church doctrine without any possibility that Church doctrine and the subject might can work together in the minds of the men of the Church.

Their statements have been dissected, with what appears to be a biased eye evident by saying things like, ‘it doesn’t speak of provisioning, or administering’, even though the statements specifically say, ‘provision and administrative’. Again, there was an immediate attack on one who attempts to understand if the statements and doctrine of the Church are actually in conflict or not. Those making the attacks move the discussion far from the statements and go straight for false statements, more correctly false accusations. I’ve tried to point out the irony of a particular poster who said that I said something I didn’t and how quickly they were ‘offended’ when someone spoke against their position.

The teachings of Christ are simple and without qualifications. He excluded no one in his call for the ‘least of His’. Yet people argue against any possibility of a social solution that may make is so His teachings can be fulfilled because government can do nothing right, and it is without a doubt against Church doctrine? How many times have I pointed out that ‘We the people’ are the government in America? But when we try and point out that ‘We the people’ claim to be a part of the body of Christ and how we are called to care for one another terms like ‘leftist’, ‘liberal’ or ‘socialist’ are thrown around because of a willingness to try and work out a solution through government, of our ‘Christian’ nation.

Someone please humor me and explain on how this goal of universal health care can be accomplished on a state, or smaller, level? I’m in a rural area and it would only take one health catastrophe to shut down the Church here. Heaven forbid we seek assistance outside that circle, according to some here. It appears there is no recognition of the least of His unless they know them personally. Again, it’s a qualification excluding someone from His call to help.

Prolonging the discussion, under the guise of searching for the best solution, prolongs many who need help and will not see it in their lifetime.

Everyone uses ‘Obamacare’ most liberally. Isn’t it modeled after the ‘Romneycare’ in Mass.? Of course it seems Romney maybe backing away from that idea as not really working since he’s set his sights on the white house.

We cannot accomplish Christian goals if we view them through political lenses. Neither party accomplishes anything long term. They blame the other side and the status quo remains the same. Oh yea, we can take the high road and stand behind the righteous appears of denouncing gay marriage and abortion for a bloc of voters being pulled by their faith strings. Those things will not cost us money, and one could save us money. But other social programs, why we’d have to pay taxes to cover housing, food, or health care, let’s not rush into those things, or cut them back for ‘other’ reasons.

We have a higher calling people and there’s no way someone can convince me that Christ’s teachings and Church doctrine can be in conflict because we might consider using a ‘Christian’ nation to accomplish His goals through our government. I love the Lord and His Church and would never intentionally go against either. With that said, I don’t believe we are called to a legalistic faith, where we have to read through so many things to stay on path. The Bible and Catechism is enough for me, under the guidance of His Church. This doesn’t mean I don’t read other things. I just don’t do it for the purposes of supporting a ‘political’ view. I do it to deepen my faith and understanding, which I have to be honest and say, gets shaken at times that I see Catholics attack one another without charity by using false accusations, condescending tones, ad hominems, etc. etc. All for the political powers of this world…

 

[Carlan]

We have a higher calling people and there’s no way someone can convince me that Christ’s teachings and Church doctrine can be in conflict because we might consider using a ‘Christian’ nation to accomplish His goals through our government. I love the Lord and His Church and would never intentionally go against either. With that said, I don’t believe we are called to a legalistic faith, where we have to read through so many things to stay on path. The Bible and Catechism is enough for me, under the guidance of His Church. This doesn’t mean I don’t read other things. I just don’t do it for the purposes of supporting a ‘political’ view. I do it to deepen my faith and understanding, which I have to be honest and say, gets shaken at times that I see Catholics attack one another without charity by using false accusations, condescending tones, ad homonyms, etc. etc. All for the political powers of this world…

Thank you for the truth of this post.
Catholic Answers is a Christian forum not a not an outlet for political solutions to the “Sermon on the Mount”. That’s my opinion.
Peace, Carlan

 

[1holycatholic]

You write the following:

Someone please humor me and explain on how this goal of universal health care can be accomplished on a state, or smaller, level?

Which is an attempt to justify dissent from Church teaching.

Then you write:

Everyone uses ‘Obamacare’ most liberally. Isn’t it modeled after the ‘Romneycare’ in Mass.? Of course it seems Romney maybe backing away from that idea as not really working since he’s set his sights on the white house.

You have asked and answered your own question. They did it in Massachusetts. In fact there was health care before there was any government involvement, even for rural people.

 

[markomalley]

Catholic Answers is a Christian forum not a not an outlet for political solutions to the “Sermon on the Mount”. That’s my opinion.
Peace, Carlan

In which case, then why are socialist leaning Catholics pushing state-run, state-funded, state-regulated medicine?

That is the political solution.

It would be far better if you were to support something that is in line with the teachings of the Church. One big thing that you, hopefully, one day will understand is that a State-run, State-regulated, State-funded solution doesn’t cut it. Period.
Political power, which is the natural and necessary link for ensuring the cohesion of the social body, must have as its aim the achievement of the common good. While respecting the legitimate liberties of individuals, families and subsidiary groups, it acts in such a way as to create, effectively and for the well-being of all, the conditions required for attaining man’s true and complete good, including his spiritual end. It acts within the limits of its competence, which can vary from people to people and from country to country. It always intervenes with care for justice and with devotion to the common good, for which: it holds final responsibility. It does not, for all that, deprive individuals and intermediary bodies of the field of activity and responsibility which are proper to them and which lead them to **collaborate **in the attainment of this common good. In fact, “the true aim of all social activity should be to help individual members of the social body, but never to destroy or absorb them”. According to the vocation proper to is, the political power must know how to stand aside from particular interests in order to view its responsibility with regard to the good of all men, even going beyond national limits. To take politics seriously at its different levels - local, regional, national and worldwide - is to affirm the duty of man, of every man, to recognize the concrete reality and the value of the freedom of choice that is offered to him to seek to bring about both the good of the city and of the nation and of mankind. Politics are a demanding manner - but not the only one - of living the Christian commitment to the service of others. Without of course solving every problem, it endeavors to apply solutions to the relationships men have with one another. The domain of politics is wide and comprehensive, but it is not exclusive. An attitude of encroachment which would tend to set up politics as an absolute value would bring serious danger. While recognizing the autonomy of the reality of politics, Christians who are invited to take up political activity should try to make their choices consistent with the Gospel and, in the framework of a legitimate plurality, to give both personal collective witness to the seriousness of their faith by effective and disinterested service of men.

- Pope Paul VI, Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens, 46
​

Note the highlighted text. The State does not just do it, the State should set up the environment to allow individuals and intermediate bodies to collaborate one with another for the common good. It should be noted that “intermediate bodies” does not solely mean “intermediate levels of government” – it is talking about intermediate societal groups: charities, corporations, associations, and so on. And, yes, intermediate governmental bodies as well (just not exclusively that).

The State-run solution eliminates the role altogether for individuals and intermediate bodies to collaborate for the common good.

The State-funded solution co-opts individuals and intermediate bodies, because funding never, ever comes without strings.

The State-regulated solution absorbs individuals and intermediate bodies, because it sets bureaucratic regulations and operating manuals which rule out charity.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Medical costs are out of control, just as insurance costs are. People make choices to go without treatments for the financial sakes of their families, or because their credit rating prevents them from being able to finance life extending treatments. Consider, also, that some people have to ‘fight’ some insurance companies to provide the coverage they pay for.

If access to appropriate health care wasn’t as dire as represented then why is the Holy Father and other men of the Church speaking out about it? Then when they do speak out, with specific statements, it can’t be taken in the specific context as stated because that would be against Church doctrines and anyone that reads it in that fashion is against Church doctrine without any possibility that Church doctrine and the subject might can work together in the minds of the men of the Church.

Their statements have been dissected, with what appears to be a biased eye evident by saying things like, ‘it doesn’t speak of provisioning, or administering’, even though the statements specifically say, ‘provision and administrative’. Again, there was an immediate attack on one who attempts to understand if the statements and doctrine of the Church are actually in conflict or not. Those making the attacks move the discussion far from the statements and go straight for false statements, more correctly false accusations. I’ve tried to point out the irony of a particular poster who said that I said something I didn’t and how quickly they were ‘offended’ when someone spoke against their position.

The teachings of Christ are simple and without qualifications. He excluded no one in his call for the ‘least of His’. Yet people argue against any possibility of a social solution that may make is so His teachings can be fulfilled because government can do nothing right, and it is without a doubt against Church doctrine? How many times have I pointed out that ‘We the people’ are the government in America? But when we try and point out that ‘We the people’ claim to be a part of the body of Christ and how we are called to care for one another terms like ‘leftist’, ‘liberal’ or ‘socialist’ are thrown around because of a willingness to try and work out a solution through government, of our ‘Christian’ nation.

Someone please humor me and explain on how this goal of universal health care can be accomplished on a state, or smaller, level? I’m in a rural area and it would only take one health catastrophe to shut down the Church here. Heaven forbid we seek assistance outside that circle, according to some here. It appears there is no recognition of the least of His unless they know them personally. Again, it’s a qualification excluding someone from His call to help.

Prolonging the discussion, under the guise of searching for the best solution, prolongs many who need help and will not see it in their lifetime.

Everyone uses ‘Obamacare’ most liberally. Isn’t it modeled after the ‘Romneycare’ in Mass.? Of course it seems Romney maybe backing away from that idea as not really working since he’s set his sights on the white house.

We cannot accomplish Christian goals if we view them through political lenses. Neither party accomplishes anything long term. They blame the other side and the status quo remains the same. Oh yea, we can take the high road and stand behind the righteous appears of denouncing gay marriage and abortion for a bloc of voters being pulled by their faith strings. Those things will not cost us money, and one could save us money. But other social programs, why we’d have to pay taxes to cover housing, food, or health care, let’s not rush into those things, or cut them back for ‘other’ reasons.

We have a higher calling people and there’s no way someone can convince me that Christ’s teachings and Church doctrine can be in conflict because we might consider using a ‘Christian’ nation to accomplish His goals through our government. I love the Lord and His Church and would never intentionally go against either. With that said, I don’t believe we are called to a legalistic faith, where we have to read through so many things to stay on path. The Bible and Catechism is enough for me, under the guidance of His Church. This doesn’t mean I don’t read other things. I just don’t do it for the purposes of supporting a ‘political’ view. I do it to deepen my faith and understanding, which I have to be honest and say, gets shaken at times that I see Catholics attack one another without charity by using false accusations, condescending tones, ad hominems, etc. etc. All for the political powers of this world…

All very interesting. But the Pope has not directly addressed the healthcare debate in the U.S, or prescribed obamacare as its resolution. It’s wrong to suggest that he has.

Never did Jesus propose state control of anything.

Nobody really knows how many people were involuntarily and chronically without health coverage before 2009. Obamacare is a theoretical solution to a theoretical need.

I have never seen a persuasive argument that only the federal government can, by taking over healthcare, ensure care for everyone. Even Obama admits that Obamacare won’t do it and actually didn’t favor it himself.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You write the following:

Which is an attempt to justify dissent from Church teaching.

Same old unfounded accusation based on a question.

Then you write:

You have asked and answered your own question. They did it in Massachusetts. In fact there was health care before there was any government involvement, even for rural people.

You know nothing of the rural area I’m in and yet state your view as superior over experience.

I’m trying to understand Christ’s teaching through the Church, not through a political view as you offer.

 

[gnjsdad]

Why not answer my questions about trusting voters in the states? It wasn’t rhetorical. I would really like to know why you don’t believe in the ability of the people to determine what is best for their state.

Because, in my opinion, it’s irrelevant what the voters in the states want or don’t want. Elections have become a fiction, held to give the system we live under a veneer of legitimacy. I say that not because I favor such a condition but because that’s the reality. We live in a plutocracy, my friend, run by the rich and powerful for the rich and powerful. The influence of a couple of billionaires (Soros, the Koch brothers) is more profound than the thousands of votes cast in any state election. Ask the people of Wisconsin if they KNEW they were voting for the end of union collective barganing rights when they voted in Scott Walker. Why do you think small busineses can’t get the time of day from banks or from Washington? Could it be that the big mega-corporations with their bought and paid-for Congress in Washington control the rules of the game? And BTW, I refuse to accept that this all started with Obama or that it will change once Obama is out.

If the people in individual states could choose their own healthcare delivery systems and these systems conformed to Catholic social doctrine, I would be all for that. But that won’t happen. It doesn’t have a prospect of happening under the current system. IMO, a healthcare system run according to Catholic teaching requires a confessional state, a state which has as it’s foundational principle the acknowledged Kingship of Christ and the supremacy of the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. America isn’t that. It never will be that. Have you noticed how weak the Catholic influence is in America right now?. Does any public figure in America take seriously what the Bishops have to say? Right now, we Catholics are reduced to making an evaluaton between what we have now (not acceptable) and “Obamacare” (still not acceptable, but marginally better).

Please feel free to begin dissecting me now

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

All very interesting. But the Pope has not directly addressed the healthcare debate in the U.S, or prescribed obamacare as its resolution. It’s wrong to suggest that he has.

Never did Jesus propose state control of anything.

Nobody really knows how many people were involuntarily and chronically without health coverage before 2009. Obamacare is a theoretical solution to a theoretical need.

I have never seen a persuasive argument that only the federal government can, by taking over healthcare, ensure care for everyone. Even Obama admits that Obamacare won’t do it and actually didn’t favor it himself.

The Pope addressed ‘universal’ health care. I don’t see how it excludes any country.

Never did Jesus exclude Christians utilizing any avenue possible to achieve His teachings. I believe He wanted us to give with a joyful, loving heart. What some are arguing against amounts to money.

Because we don’t know how many without health care is no excuse to do nothing about it, in my honest opinion.

Again, because one avenue won’t ensure health for everyone is not an excuse to do nothing.

 

[1holycatholic]

Never did Jesus exclude Christians utilizing any avenue possible to achieve His teachings.

Absolute rubbish.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The Pope addressed ‘universal’ health care. I don’t see how it excludes any country.

Never did Jesus exclude Christians utilizing any avenue possible to achieve His teachings. I believe He wanted us to give with a joyful, loving heart. What some are arguing against amounts to money.

Because we don’t know how many without health care is no excuse to do nothing about it, in my honest opinion.

Again, because one avenue won’t ensure health for everyone is not an excuse to do nothing.

Perhaps it would have been better, then, to have identified just exactly who has no provision for healthcare because of poverty and/or preexisting conditions. In solving a perceived (or fabricated) problem, it always helps to know there really is a systemic problem and what the problem really is before employing drastic systemic measures to solve it. That’s especiallly true when the perpetrators of the systemic overhaul admit that it won’t likely provide for any more people than were provided for pre-overhaul.

I think it’s time we admitted that Obamacare was “social change for the sake of social change”. Its primary effects will be funding abortions (yes, yes, I know about the bogus presidential order that doesn’t prevent anything) and forcing one segment of the middle class to subsidize another segment of the middle class. There’s no difference in the situation of the truly poor. But there is also the distinct possibility that even the middle class subsidy is illusory, since the middle class welfare it represents is a sliding benefit against the background of mandate-caused cost increases. Personally, I think we’ve all been had.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Absolute rubbish.

Never did Christ promote to save one’s taxes or even put their money before His teachings or over the least of His.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

The Pope addressed ‘universal’ health care. I don’t see how it excludes any country.

Never did Jesus exclude Christians utilizing any avenue possible to achieve His teachings. I believe He wanted us to give with a joyful, loving heart. What some are arguing against amounts to money.

Because we don’t know how many without health care is no excuse to do nothing about it, in my honest opinion.

Again, because one avenue won’t ensure health for everyone is not an excuse to do nothing.

The ends do not justify the means - We are called to use moral means to accomplish moral ends.

As demonstrated by this thread, several posters have concerns about how Federal government funded health care falls into line with the concept of subsidiarity. It’s not that they are against affordable health care for all, or that they are for the current system.

 

[rlg94086]

**Because, in my opinion, it’s irrelevant what the voters in the states want or don’t want. **Elections have become a fiction, held to give the system we live under a veneer of legitimacy. I say that not because I favor such a condition but because that’s the reality. We live in a plutocracy, my friend, run by the rich and powerful for the rich and powerful. The influence of a couple of billionaires (Soros, the Koch brothers) is more profound than the thousands of votes cast in any state election. Ask the people of Wisconsin if they KNEW they were voting for the end of union collective barganing rights when they voted in Scott Walker. Why do you think small busineses can’t get the time of day from banks or from Washington? Could it be that the big mega-corporations with their bought and paid-for Congress in Washington control the rules of the game? And BTW, I refuse to accept that this all started with Obama or that it will change once Obama is out.

If the people in individual states could choose their own healthcare delivery systems and these systems conformed to Catholic social doctrine, I would be all for that. But that won’t happen. It doesn’t have a prospect of happening under the current system. IMO, a healthcare system run according to Catholic teaching requires a confessional state, a state which has as it’s foundational principle the acknowledged Kingship of Christ and the supremacy of the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. America isn’t that. It never will be that. Have you noticed how weak the Catholic influence is in America right now?. Does any public figure in America take seriously what the Bishops have to say? Right now, we Catholics are reduced to making an evaluaton between what we have now (not acceptable) and “Obamacare” (still not acceptable, but marginally better).

Please feel free to begin dissecting me now

No dissecting necessary. You believe voters are irrelevant, so there is no need to pay any further attention to your posts regarding our great country.