Affordable Health Care is a Christian Act

[davidmlamb]

I could not agree with you more! It is easier to battle with the open atheistic Liberals on the left but the real and more EVIL are those who desguise themselves as pious and religious when their intention are really evil in nature.

Well I am glad someone agrees with me. This poor woman represents tens of thousands of other American men and woman in similar situations and I don’t see right wing Catholics concerned with their welfare. They are more concerned with the welfare of themselves and the liberty of corporations and religious organizations than human dignity and the common good. And they use abortion to hide behind their approval of euthenasia. What will they do when they stand before God? Shame on all of them!

David

 

[Ender]

"davidmlamb:

God will unmask and defeat the spirit of right wing conservatism which is the spirit of the anti Christ desguised as an angel of light

I could not agree with you more! It is easier to battle with the open atheistic Liberals on the left but the real and more EVIL are those who desguise themselves as pious and religious when their intention are really evil in nature.

I’m really tired of this. You ought to know that judgments like this are rash, uncharitable, and forbidden not only by the Church but - more significantly in this context - by the administrators of this forum. If you have no better argument than “You people are evil” then you need to find yourselves another place to play. If you have a reasoned argument, make it. I suppose I should be more concerned with the inappropriate nature of these insults but what actually bothers me most is their complete irrelevance and of the impossibility of having a rational discussion with people who think this way. Clean up your act or I’ll ask the administrators to get involved.

Ender

 

[je333]

I’m really tired of this. You ought to know that judgments like this are rash, uncharitable, and forbidden not only by the Church but - more significantly in this context - by the administrators of this forum. If you have no better argument than “You people are evil” then you need to find yourselves another place to play. If you have a reasoned argument, make it. I suppose I should be more concerned with the inappropriate nature of these insults but what actually bothers me most is their complete irrelevance and of the impossibility of having a rational discussion with people who think this way. Clean up your act or I’ll ask the administrators to get involved.

Ender

I find no evil in the statements I made. Perhaps, you need to check within yourself. Just because you find our political views different from your own does not make you have the right to monopolize the right to post on Catholic Forums. Why don’t you go after the right wing conservative that post hateful and more judgemental statements towards people of all political views and the current president?

 

[JimG]

Jim,

The problem with this argument is that it asserts that individuals do not have religious liberty only organizations have these rights. This law gives individuals the liberty to choose whether or not they want birth control. The law however is not forcing Catholic institutions to provide birth control, it is requiring the insurance companies to provide them (there is a difference). Do you not believe individuals have the religious liberty to choose what they believe and practice or do you believe organizations have the liberty to take the liberty of individuals away? The USCCB doesn’t seem to care about individual persons liberty but only their liberty to control the masses. They should trust their parishioners to do what is right.

Moreover this is a “problem” limited to the United States. Every Catholic country provides publicly paid health care and everyone of them have provisions for birth control (as well as abortion). But we do not hear the European Bishops, the Canadian Bishops, UK Bishops, or the Vatican whining about these laws. It is simply IMO a red hearing in most cases to promote absolute capitalism.

Every Catholic knows that birth control is wrong and therefore they are culpable for what they do with their liberty.

Peace,

David

Let’s be clear. The HHS mandate imposes requirements on employers. No one is being denied contraception. Up until the PPACA was passed, has contraception been unavailable? Of course not. It has been, and continues to be, widely available, sometimes even free. There has been no shortage of contraception.

The change is that the government now wishes to impose on religious organizations, through force of law, a requirement which violates their conscience. It forces them to choose to reject their religion, or to go out of business.

It imposes the same requirement on individual Catholic business owners. It imposes the same unconstitutional requirement on Catholic insurance companies.

Every bishop of every diocese in the United States has opposed this mandate. Most have stated that they will not, cannot comply. They have the choice of remaining Catholic by violating the law, or of rejecting their religion by complying with the law.

The HHS mandate essentially threatens the shutdown of every Catholic institution in the country except actual parish worship services. Catholic hospitals, Catholic charities, Catholic food kitchens, Catholic homeless shelters. They must either reject their religion, or pay oppressive fines, or go out of business.

The administration is essentially willing to toss aside the entire Catholic social services network, which does great good for the poor and those in need, in favor of placating the narrow view of the abortion / Planned Parenthood lobby.

It won’t end there. This year it will be contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion inducing drugs. Next year, perhaps, it will be abortion and euthanasia.

I think the bishops will find that the Vatican backs their position completely.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Swissguy, how is the care in Swiss system paid for?

theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/the-myth-of-the-free-market-american-health-care-system/254210/

In Switzerland, there are no government-run insurance plans, no “public options.” Instead, the Swiss get subsidies, much like “premium support” proposals for Medicare reform or the PPACA exchanges, from which Swiss citizens buy health care from private insurers. The subsidies are scaled up or down based on income: poorer people get large subsidies; middle-income earners get small subsidies; upper-income earners get nothing.

The OECD puts Switzerland high on the league tables in terms of government health spending, but that is due to a statistical anomaly. Switzerland has an individual mandate; the OECD defines state health expenditures to include insurance premiums that the government requires individuals to pay, even if that spending is on private insurance. That is a debatable approach from the OECD, because the spending goes directly to the insurers, without the government as a redistributor. If you adjust for this anomaly, Swiss state health spending is $1,281 per person (which accounts for the taxpayer-financed premium support subsidies). I’ve listed both figures in the chart.

The premium support system allows the Swiss to shop for their own insurance plans, which gives them the opportunity to shop for value–something that almost no Americans do. As a result, about half of the Swiss have consumer-driven health plans, combining high-deductible insurance with health savings accounts for routine expenditures.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

That’s right! True socialism is the collective ownership of labor by the state and NOT the state providing social assistance or public benefits. Even the Vatican is a social assistant state. It is right wing conservatives who have redefined socialism to include any publicly paid benefit by the state. Where does the Catechism of the Catholic Church condemn social security, medicare or social assistance ? On the contrary it requires these things:

Not exactly. A social assistance state is bureaucratic and doesn’t respect subsidiarity or the needs of individuals. A social assistance state doesn’t necessarily equal a state that provides public benefits.

 

[markomalley]

I could not agree with you more! It is easier to battle with the open atheistic Liberals on the left but the real and more EVIL are those who desguise themselves as pious and religious when their intention are really evil in nature.

So I guess you could count the authors of this piece as totally evil and destined for perdition if they don’t repent of their ways, right?

I. The Principle of Subsidiarity: Preamble to the Work of Reform

This notion that health care ought to be determined at the lowest level rather than at the higher strata of society, has been promoted by the Church as “subsidiarity.” Subsidiarity is that principle by which we respect the inherent dignity and freedom of the individual by never doing for others what they can do for themselves and thus enabling individuals to have the most possible discretion in the affairs of their lives. (See: Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, ## 185ff.; Catechism of the Catholic Church, # 1883) The writings of recent Popes have warned that the neglect of subsidiarity can lead to an excessive centralization of human services, which in turn leads to excessive costs, and loss of personal responsibility and quality of care.

Pope John Paul II wrote:

“By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.” (Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus #48)

And Pope Benedict writes:

“The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person—every person—needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. … In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live ‘by bread alone’ (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3)—a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human.” (Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est #28)

While subsidiarity is vital to the structure of justice, we can see from what the Popes say that it rests on a more fundamental principal, the unchanging dignity of the person. The belief in the innate value of human life and the transcendent dignity of the human person must be the primordial driving force of reform efforts.​

If you would like to call the two authors of the above evil, well, I guess that is your Constitutional right. But, considering where you’re making your announcement, it might not be the most prudent thing to do.

But it is your life.

 

[perro_sarnoso]

One thing that is often overlooked in this controversy is that the intent of President Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act is fix one of the biggest disgraces of the USA, namely that we are the last industrialized country without a national health care system, and this results in an incalculable amount of suffering, death and hardship for Americans.

Let’s talk about the immoral situation that has been the USA without a decent health care system: The 45,000 people dying in the USA for lack of adequate health care. The 62% of bankruptcies resulting from family medical costs, the 50% (over half a million homes) of foreclosures that came from medical costs. If such death and hardship were caused by a natural disaster or enemy attack, it would be an unparalleled catastrophe, but it’s been happening every year. Think about how much suffering comes from just one tragic death and then multiply it by 45,000, think about thousands of homeless families, and then you’ll realize that, in trying to finally find a solution to this mess, Obama is doing a very Christian and heroic thing.

We live in a pluralistic democracy which means we all pay taxes for things we don’t want to necessarily support – for the death penalty, for ongoing war, for weapons of mass destruction – but that’s the price we pay for living in this kind of society. We have to make the same (and actually minor) compromises to correct this moral evil of lack of health care access. Whether with the progressive Single Payer plan or this conservative solution of business/individual mandated health insurance, various groups paying indirectly for something they would rather not is just a reality of life, and one they should welcome in order to right the moral evil of lack of health care access.

I have international clients in Spain (AKA 70% Catholic Spain) and when I tell them about this controversy they think I am kidding. They would never dream of having a Catholic mandates in their national health care system.

So consider the fact that finally creating some kind of system for universal health care access – a concept long urged by US Council of Catholic Bishops – is in itself a humane act that would certainly qualify as Christian in terms of its goal of relieving the human suffering on a catastrophic scale that is going on in this country. Support the efforts in our country to correct this moral wrong.

Not at the expense of 10’s of thousands of human lifes per year. Life begins at conception and we seem to have no conception of this fact.

It is the bait that will reel us all in…to apostasy and to hell. How insidious - how wicked this plan…
If he gets re-elected…we will deserve everything that comes with it.

 

[je333]

So I guess you could count the authors of this piece as totally evil and destined for perdition if they don’t repent of their ways, right?

I. The Principle of Subsidiarity: Preamble to the Work of Reform

This notion that health care ought to be determined at the lowest level rather than at the higher strata of society, has been promoted by the Church as “subsidiarity.” Subsidiarity is that principle by which we respect the inherent dignity and freedom of the individual by never doing for others what they can do for themselves and thus enabling individuals to have the most possible discretion in the affairs of their lives. (See: Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, ## 185ff.; Catechism of the Catholic Church, # 1883) The writings of recent Popes have warned that the neglect of subsidiarity can lead to an excessive centralization of human services, which in turn leads to excessive costs, and loss of personal responsibility and quality of care.

Pope John Paul II wrote:

“By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.” (Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus #48)

And Pope Benedict writes:

“The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person—every person—needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. … In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live ‘by bread alone’ (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3)—a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human.” (Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est #28)

While subsidiarity is vital to the structure of justice, we can see from what the Popes say that it rests on a more fundamental principal, the unchanging dignity of the person. The belief in the innate value of human life and the transcendent dignity of the human person must be the primordial driving force of reform efforts.​

If you would like to call the two authors of the above evil, well, I guess that is your Constitutional right. But, considering where you’re making your announcement, it might not be the most prudent thing to do.

But it is your life.

No I don’t call JPII and PB XVI Evil. Those are your incorrect assumptions. I am talking about the people on the POLITICAL right in the USA using Christianity/Religion. POLITICS AND RELIGION are not the same, you know, and I think that is where the problem is when people can’t distinguish the difference. Religious conservatism is admirable but political conservatism who call themselves Christians who are the RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVES are, in my opinion, disgraceful!

 

[markomalley]

No I don’t call JPII and PB XVI Evil. Those are your incorrect assumptions. I am talking about the people on the POLITICAL right in the USA using Christianity/Religion. POLITICS AND RELIGION are not the same, you know, and I think that is where the problem is when people can’t distinguish the difference. Religious conservatism is admirable but political conservatism who call themselves Christians who are the RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVES are, in my opinion, disgraceful!

No, I was talking about the authors of the article, not the citations quoted in the article.

You might want to read the whole thing. Because that article is saying EXACTLY what most of us horrible right wingers are saying.

I know, it’s terrible when a person takes Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Leo XIII, Pope John XXIII, Pope Pius XI, etc., etc. out of context, right?

At least that’s what I’ve been accused of.

Well, here’s another quote out of that piece (emphasis mine):

The right of every individual to access health care does not necessarily suppose an obligation on the part of the government to provide it. Yet in our American culture, Catholic teaching about the “right” to healthcare is sometimes confused with the structures of “entitlement.” The teaching of the Universal Church has never been to suggest a government socialization of medical services. Rather, the Church has asserted the rights of every individual to have access to those things most necessary for sustaining and caring for human life, while at the same time insisting on the personal responsibility of each individual to care properly for his or her own health.

Are the authors of that piece sufficiently evil for you?

Before you answer, you might want to check to see who the authors of that piece are.

And, by the way, their take on that is EXACTLY the same as my take. So if you’re calling me evil for taking that position, you’re calling the authors evil for holding the same position.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I am confused by your comments, GreyPilgrim. You sound as if you are disagreeing with Balian here, but he is recommending a universal healthcare program just as you are. Eliminate the middleman, the insurance companies. Looks to me like you are both advocating the same thing.
The only way the government can cut costs is to get rid of the insurance companies, which is not what the ACA does. It just piles more money into the insurance companies’ coffers.

I never advocated for the ACA. It is socialized health care, which there no form, no matter how it is eiphamistically referred to, that I will support. The government is no better of a middle-man than insurance companies. In fact I consider it worse.

I want hospitals to control themselves, not the government, not insurance companies. I don’t want “universal health care” as most others here with progressivist/socialist bent want it. I want health care to go back to the way it was before it was co-opted by bureaucrats.

Maybe, and I stress MAYBE, I might allow some government subsidies, but those must be paid directly to hospitals themselves or passed onto states to pay hospitals. And the government caanot have any say as to how the hospital applies those funds. Control of care must be at the discretion of doctors, not bureaucrats. I trust doctors more than politicians.

 

[je333]

No, I was talking about the authors of the article, not the citations quoted in the article.

And I was right when I said that I don’t call JPII and PBXVI evil. Why even implicate them in our discussion. They are religious figures. I only talk about political figures on this thread.

Don’t you agree that there are people on the political right who disguise themselves as pious and religious and have evil intention? If that is not you, then, it should not apply to you.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/the-myth-of-the-free-market-american-health-care-system/254210/

Swissguy, were do those "subsidies "come from?

 

[Brendan]

Don’t you agree that there are people on the political right who disguise themselves as pious and religious and have evil intention? If that is not you, then, it should not apply to you.

First, outside of someone making personal statements on the subject, I know of no way of determining a person’s intention on a matter. So how would you determine if their intention is evil?

We can look at behaviors and actions, such as an abortion, the use of contraception or an attempt a gay marriage, and call them objectively evil actions. But even then, the intent of the person is hidden unless personally revealed.

Secondly, I would also claim that there are an equal number on the polictial left who use call upon religion to as a source of their political beliefs. Are they too in the wrong?

 

[markomalley]

Don’t you agree that there are people on the political right who disguise themselves as pious and religious and have evil intention? If that is not you, then, it should not apply to you.

OK, now you’re starting to qualify your earlier statements.

In response to another poster who said, Also, please pray that God will unmask and defeat the spirit of right wing conservatism which is the spirit of the anti Christ desguised as an angel of light., you said: *I could not agree with you more! *

(By the way, I am a right wing conservative…just to make sure that the record is straight)

Just because I spout the same, exact position as Archbishop Naumann and Bishop Finn (KC KS and KC MO), I am identified by this other individual as evil and spouting the same position as the son of perdition. According to you (“I could not agree with you more!”), apparently I am.

It’s pretty easy to disparage posters on an anonymous Internet forum. I’m just asking if it is as easy to disparage bishops who hold the same exact position? (You could also include Bishop Morlino, Bishop Nickless, Bishop Slattery, Archbishop Nienstedt, and others in that list)

 

[je333]

Secondly, I would also claim that there are an equal number on the polictial left who use call upon religion to as a source of their political beliefs. Are they too in the wrong?

If you reread my post I said that IT IS EASIER TO BATTLE the atheistic Liberals on the LEFT because they are so open about their beliefs.

 

[je333]

OK, now you’re starting to qualify your earlier statements.

In response to another poster who said, Also, please pray that God will unmask and defeat the spirit of right wing conservatism which is the spirit of the anti Christ desguised as an angel of light., you said: *I could not agree with you more! *

(By the way, I am a right wing conservative…just to make sure that the record is straight)

Just because I spout the same, exact position as Archbishop Naumann and Bishop Finn (KC KS and KC MO), I am identified by this other individual as evil and spouting the same position as the son of perdition. According to you (“I could not agree with you more!”), apparently I am.

It’s pretty easy to disparage posters on an anonymous Internet forum. I’m just asking if it is as easy to disparage bishops who hold the same exact position? (You could also include Bishop Morlino, Bishop Nickless, Bishop Slattery, Archbishop Nienstedt, and others in that list)

“…the spirit of right wing conservatism[POLITICAL] which is the spirit of the anti Christ desguised as an angel of light.”

why don’t i have a right to agree and to say that there are evil on that party in disguise as pious and religious as there are evil on the atheistic left? perhaps you can help me look what error is there in my statements?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

First, outside of someone making personal statements on the subject, I know of no way of determining a person’s intention on a matter. So how would you determine if their intention is evil?

We can look at behaviors and actions, such as an abortion, the use of contraception or an attempt a gay marriage, and call them objectively evil actions. But even then, the intent of the person is hidden unless personally revealed.

Secondly, I would also claim that there are an equal number on the polictial left who use call upon religion to as a source of their political beliefs. Are they too in the wrong?

What we all forget in pushing our “ideas” is openness to the possibility that we might be wrong and the docility to accept different perspectives.

The essential insight that liberals possess is that of absolute love. But Liberals naturally who tend towards being soft-hearted often succumb to also being soft-headed. They mistake being “kind” or “compassionate”-the desire for them to eliminate others of their pain-for love which is not always either kind or compassionate. Hence they will set aside essential truths because they’re too “harsh” or “rigid” or “dogmatic”. They forget that Truth is absolute and make the big mistake of setting it aside. Hence their love is no longer absolute because they have divorced it from Truth.

The essential insight that conservatives possess is that of absolute truth. But conservatives who tend to be hard-headed often succumb to hard-heartedness. Truth to them is as clear and hard as a diamond and any “imperfection” that they perceive may flaw that diamond is roundedly rejected. This leads inevitably to Pharisaical legalism. They fail to see that truth without love isn’t even absolute truth, they have divorced love from truth.

Both sides fail to see the other’s absolute. What they/we also forget is that both absolute love and absolute truth are not things-they are a person.

Jesus was BOTH hard-headed AND soft-hearted. The same person who said, “love one another as I have loved you” also said, “I have come not to bring peace but the sword.”

All of us need to remember that Truth is not cold emptyness and Love is not warm wimpyness. And Christianity-that is following Christ-is too dynamic to be either "left "or “right” and to throw these labels at each other because we disagree does violence not only to the person but also to Christ and His body.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Swissguy, where do those "subsidies "come from?

*where

 

[Brendan]

If you reread my post I said that IT IS EASIER TO BATTLE the atheistic Liberals on the LEFT because they are so open about their beliefs.

I have not found any on the right to be less open about their beliefs. But that is distinct from intent.