S
sedonaman
Guest
Why would it take a king’s order to make you do it?
- Status
S
sedonaman
Guest
Has anyone considered mutual benefit societies? They were popular in the early 20th century before government took over just about everything.
S
sedonaman
Guest
You seem to equate the two criticisms. While the popes have criticized capitalism, they have condemned socialism.
If you have an equally blistering condemnation from a pope on free markets, I’d like to see it.
I
InJesusItrust
Guest
I don’t believe in the ideas of the enlightenment and I believe God will appoint a king after the chastisement.
M
markomalley
Guest
One point: you will likely NOT hear conservatives criticizing the Vatican. You will likely also NOT hear conservatives criticize USCCB positions that have received a recognito by the Vatican. You are familiar with Apostolos Suos, right? If not, you might wish to familiarize yourself with it. It is a Motu Proprio issued by John Paul II in 1998 that defined when a bishops’ conference could propagate their authentic magesterium for their subjects. It issued the following complementary norms that are to be used with the Code of Canon Law:
Art. 1. – In order that the doctrinal declarations of the Conference of Bishops referred to in No. 22 of the present Letter may constitute authentic magisterium and be published in the name of the Conference itself, they must be unanimously approved by the Bishops who are members, or receive the recognitio of the Apostolic See if approved in plenary assembly by at least two thirds of the Bishops belonging to the Conference and having a deliberative vote.
Art. 2. – No body of the Episcopal Conference, outside of the plenary assembly, has the power to carry out acts of authentic magisterium. The Episcopal Conference cannot grant such power to its Commissions or other bodies set up by it.
Art. 3. – For statements of a different kind, different from those mentioned in article 2, the Doctrinal Commission of the Conference of Bishops must be authorized explicitly by the Permanent Council of the Conference.
Art. 4. – The Episcopal Conferences are to review their statutes in order that they may be consistent with the clarifications and norms of the present document as well as the Code of Canon Law, and they should send them subsequently to the Apostolic See for recognitio, in accordance with canon 451 of the Code of Canon Law.
Please pay particular attention to Article 2. It means that NOBODY may speak for the bishops of the USA outside of declarations made by a plenary session of those bishops (Article 1 says that, unless there is 100% unanimity, statements must receive a recognito prior to being published as the opinions of the bishops of the USA).
What that means is if Richard Doerflinger goes on a cable news channel and starts spouting off statements of how the US bishops so wildly approve of Obamacare, if it wasn’t for its support of abortion…he’d better have a unanimously approved resolution in his back pocket or one that has received the Vatican’s recognito. Otherwise, he is speaking for RIchard Doerflinger and nobody else (no matter who he claims to be speaking for). Or if Bishop Morin pronounces, in the name of the USCCB, that all Catholics must support CCHD, he, too, needs to have that officially recognized statement in his hip pocket, or he is speaking for Bishop Morin, not for the US Bishops. (Mind you, his excellency has every right in the world to pronounce authentic statements for the Diocese of Biloxi…provided that they are in union with the authentic magesterium of the Universal Church…but not for the entire US of A).
And, in all honesty, if Archbishop Chaput, Bishop Morlino, Bishop Bruskewitz, Bishop Tobin, Bishop Finn, Bishop Slattery, or another conservative bishop attempted to make a statement on behalf of the entire college of US Bishops, they would be equally in error (even though I’d be far more likely to agree with their statement).
And you will find that most (if not virtually ALL) of the statements we conservatives show disregard for are actually not authentic teaching doctrines as defined by Apostolos Suos.
Just wanted to clarify a bit for you…
I
InJesusItrust
Guest
The main problems with leftism is the lack of ethics and atheism it seems, from your quote.
abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/03/28/3465744.htm
G
gtrenewed
Guest
Have had a loved one told by an insurance company that they won’t authorize a heart transplant and then have the heart doctor say he will find a heart if we have enough money?
Have you been denied insurance after paying for it for over 30 years?
Many others have similar stories and worse.
Your question is thus a red herring, a diversion to the real problem. Besides, any Christian should be able to decide what sin is because we have the Holy Spirit.
Another bad assumption. People with pre-existing conditions have continuing health issues. If they have insurance it is not likely they would cancel it, unless it is priced out of affordability. The more you keep espousing this scenario, the more your ignorance of this problem displays itself.
Not a liberal, another one of your bad assumptions. Just a victim of the current health system. I wonder what religion you are? The Holy Spirit continually forms a Christian as we ask or even as we just go before Him seeking a better life. I would submit that most insurance companies don’t ask the Holy Spirit about denying coverage or dropping people out of coverage.
It is by faith not wishing.
Again not liberal but unintended consequences can be dealt with by correcting the original legislation.
It is not about sticking it to anyone; it is about equity and fairness. It is about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which is unfairly destroyed in many peoples lives by arbitrary decisions of the rich and powerful.
This type of fear mongering totally ignores the facts. None will be driven out of business. An industry so well entrenched in the economy cannot suddenly disappear. Our system does not work that way. However, they need to be reformed and the best reformation is a more efficient health care system.
If the US health care system follows the example of other industries that have adapted to better efficiences and operating procedures all will benefit. The patient will be healthier, the providers will have nice incomes, the insurance companies will still be in business.
Another wrong assumption. More coverage does not necessarily mean rising costs. In a consumer-driven-health-care model more coverage actually reduces costs.
In the 1970’s the auto industry offered products priced on their way of doing business much of it with built in inefficiencies and their idea of what we wanted; that is, until the oil embargo happened. Today, the model for a profitable auto factory has changed and better cars are sold for lower prices. The government provided the impetus and entrepreneurs did the rest.
Our health care system needs to do the same. The current costs are a result of built in inefficiencies. The government is providing the impetus and medical entrepreneurs
can once again do the rest.
G
gtrenewed
Guest
It is the core, the foundation to the questions here. It is more than relevant. When so large a group of fellow citizens are denied basic human rights it is most relevant.
I disagree. Most who are covered and healthy seem happy to ignore it. It is when you have been affected by an unjust system that you become passionate.
With a problem so huge there has to be a starting point. We have a Christian duty to be involved in the process and to educate ourselves on the problems and solutions that have been offered. Once something is done about it we should be ready to throw out the bad parts and keep the good.
In fact everything about health care requires a moral position. Health care practices and treatments to our bodies requires a moral position. Whether a families life can be thrown into poverty and homelessness due to medical decisions demands a moral position. Whether abortion or end of life decisions demand a moral position.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
G
gtrenewed
Guest
This is propaganda for the status quo and fear mongering. There are many solutions that have been offered that do not result in anyone failing but the whole system improving.
Your opinion here shows that you have just listened to sound bites and not really educated yourself on the many solutions out there. Consumer-Driven-Health-Care is just one example.
If there is no bread, let them eat cake. Your head in the sand outlook displays a callousness to the potential plight of some 40+ million fellow citizens.
Your goal cannot be reached under the current model. Changing the model does not mean the result will be mediocre. But it will take work just like raising the horrors of abortion has taken and continues to take work.
There was a time in this country when slavery was a working model for many Americans. The advantage to the rich landowner did not outweigh basic human rights.
The same happened to factory workers in terrible conditions early in our history.
While it was a small number of people disadvantaged when compared to the total population; it was nevertheless, immoral. It is immoral what is happening to many families who have been enslaved to the costs of going it on their own.
C
Corki
Guest
Even more, the popes have criticized **unfettered **capitalism (the pursuit of profit above all else) but I don’t think any Pope since medievil times has criticized capitatlism as an economic approach.
C
Corki
Guest
I don’t think I have engaged in fearmongering. In fact, I presented some possible changes to improve the system. But I come from a business background. When ever you want to make a change to an organization or a system, you need to consider the needs and (name removed by moderator)ut from all the stakeholders. The insurance companies and those who pay premiums to the insurance companies are major stakeholders in healthcare.
Your opinion here shows that you have just listened to sound bites and not really educated yourself on the many solutions out there. Consumer-Driven-Health-Care is just one example.
And yours displays complete disregard for the needs of the other 273 million.
The model proposed under Obamacare would result in the lowering of care for everyone who currently has comprehensive insurance coverage unless they are wealthy enough to pay out of pocket for a “cadilac” policy.
Bringing abortion into this discussion is kind of ironic, don’t you think since the proposed reform would increase the availability and funding of abortions?
Yes, those were bad times for human rights and completely irrelevant to this discussion. We are not taking about advantage to an elite few. We are talking about not disadvantaging the vast majority of Americans.
So, it’s moral to disadvantage the huge majority in order to provide an additional benefit to a much smaller group - a benefit that many of them have rejected already? (a not insignificant amount of the 40 million you quote are without insurance on purpose).
H
Hopey
Guest
Would that be bases on volunteering/non profit? I am not
familar w what was around then.
It would help everyone to have things/medical regulated and I think each state tries to do that but not enough.
At one time, I had thought it would be good if we could start bartaring again - the older country docs would never turn a patient away and would be paid in chickens or eggs at times. Wouldn’t surprise me if laws prevent that now.
S
sedonaman
Guest
I don’t think I have engaged in fearmongering. In fact, I presented some possible changes to improve the system. But I come from a business background. When ever you want to make a change to an organization or a system, you need to consider the needs and (name removed by moderator)ut from all the stakeholders. The insurance companies and those who pay premiums to the insurance companies are major stakeholders in healthcare.
Your opinion here shows that you have just listened to sound bites and not really educated yourself on the many solutions out there. Consumer-Driven-Health-Care is just one example.
And yours displays complete disregard for the needs of the other 273 million.
The model proposed under Obamacare would result in the lowering of care for everyone who currently has comprehensive insurance coverage unless they are wealthy enough to pay out of pocket for a “cadilac” policy.
Bringing abortion into this discussion is kind of ironic, don’t you think since the proposed reform would increase the availability and funding of abortions?
Yes, those were bad times for human rights and completely irrelevant to this discussion. We are not taking about advantage to an elite few. We are talking about not disadvantaging the vast majority of Americans.
So, it’s moral to disadvantage the huge majority in order to provide an additional benefit to a much smaller group - a benefit that many of them have rejected already? (a not insignificant amount of the 40 million you quote are without insurance on purpose).
S
sedonaman
Guest
You keep avoiding my question about what would keep people from waiting until they needed health care to buy insurance and cancelling once they are well. I don’t see any reason to continue this exchange until you do.
J
Jerry_Miah
Guest
You avoided a whole lot of gtrenewed’s questions, ones that highlight how the Affordable Care Act is moral in intent, like:
And your question is easily answered: In order to keep people from waiting until they needed health care to buy insurance and cancelling once they are well, there is the individual mandate. It’s the conservative, free market solution to the health care crisis that Obama chose. I would have preferred single-payer (medicare for all), but it wasn’t politically possible.
C
Corki
Guest
The act can be moral in it’s intent - I would concede that. However, the means is not moral. When you claim that somethign is a Christian act, you have to focus on the means and not just the intent. One cannot pursue a good while using an immoral means to achieve it.
V
Viki63
Guest
Someone please tell me what value the insurance companies provide?
Since their duty is first to their stockholders, and second to patients, which leads them to deny care whenever possible, how is including them in our health plan useful for us?
No one seems to object to Medicare. Jerry states: " I would have preferred single-payer (medicare for all), but it wasn’t politically possible."
It’s possible now, since whatever the Supreme Court decides, the ACA will be a no starter, and doing nothing is not an option.
We need to push for an expansion of Medicare.
Since their duty is first to their stockholders, and second to patients, which leads them to deny care whenever possible, how is including them in our health plan useful for us?
No one seems to object to Medicare. Jerry states: " I would have preferred single-payer (medicare for all), but it wasn’t politically possible."
It’s possible now, since whatever the Supreme Court decides, the ACA will be a no starter, and doing nothing is not an option.
We need to push for an expansion of Medicare.
E
Eugenius
Guest
Thank you for your common sense responses!
One thing that fails to get mentioned in these debates is that the United States has one of the highest rates of cancer, heart disease, heart attack and stroke, much of which is related directly to what we eat. The government subsidizes food that is not healthy and supports certain industries at the expense of others, all in the name of making food more affordable (gasp…socialism on your plate), which in effect perpetuates the need for our expensive health care. Don’t be fooled, people are making money in health care and at the expense of those who need it, this is part of the moral delimma.
M
markomalley
Guest
I am not a fan of insurance companies either. But for probably different reasons than you. I will explain later on.
The purpose of insurance is to spread risk around a whole lot of people, The more people the better. If you are relatively healthy, you lose a a relatively little bit of money every year having medical insurance. If you, on the other hand, have to undergo a major surgery or have some other situation (cancer treatment or some such), the $40,000 - $100,000 gets spread around the millions of people who subscribe to the same insurance scheme.
First of all, I think you have a couple of misconceptions going on here:
i.imgur.com/ntvMY.jpg
The above is a screenshot taken this morning from Google Finance. You can click on the picture to go to the actual page from Google Finance to verify that I am showing you real data. It shows most of the major companies involved in providing health insurance services. You can see that, while all of them currently are making a profit, none of those profits are horribly excessive. (In my opinion, a 5% profit margin is not an immoral profit). Compare this to a company like Microsoft, that makes a 33% profit. If you’d like to complain about profit-mongering, it’s pretty clear where those complaints should go.
The reason insurance companies don’t cover something or that they deny coverage is not an evil plot. I know it seems that way but it just isn’t. They have very specific rules on what they cover and what they don’t cover for a given policy. If the insurance policy is with a large employer, they will actually negotiate with the employer what types of things are and aren’t covered. Why? So that the premiums paid by the employer are at a cost that the employer can afford. The more that’s covered, the higher the premiums will be.
But why? I, honestly, can’t imagine anybody who would say “die, you b*****d, die”. I’m sure that we would like the ideal world where everything is covered with a zero dollar copay for anything. However, in the real world, I don’t think we could afford the premiums. It’s very, very rare that an employer provides 100% of the premium – at least part of those costs would be passed to all of us who were part of that scheme.
Look at it with a cynical eye: it would be in the insurance company’s interest to not have to deny anything. Their costs would go down while their revenues would rise. Just imagine: anytime a doctor, hospital, or pharmacy presents them a bill, they pay it out. No investigation required, no analysis, just pay it. Rather than costing about 10-12% for processing, they could reduce their costs to probably 1-2%. They would just pass the increased costs on as higher premiums. That equals more revenue. So if they’re still making 5% profit, more revenue means more dollars of earnings (even though it’s the same percentage: 5% of 1 billion dollars = 20 million; 5% of 2 billion dollars = 40 million). And that would equate to higher dividends for the stockholders. But in the real world, the subscribers wouldn’t be able to afford the premiums and would drop their coverage…which would reduce their revenues…thus, there’s no way they could do that in the real world.
No one is a little bit of a broad statement.
Medicare, in order to provide hospital insurance for 48 million seniors, spent $486 billion dollars last year. Source: White House Office of Management and Budget. That’s about $10,215 per person covered to provide hospital insurance (only). Medicare taxes last year were $188 billion coming from around 150 million taxpayers. Source: OMB. Those receipts don’t include Medicare Part B (doctor insurance), Medigap / Medicare Supplements (Part C), or Medicare Part D (drugs).
Now, let’s project this forward to say that Medicare covered everybody in the country (300,000,000 people) rather than just the 48,000,000 seniors. We could project that the cost would be about $3 trillion dollars per year. If you divide that by the 150,000,000 tax returns filed, you would find that this change would result in an additional tax burden of about $20,000 per year per tax filer. It costs my company about $14,000 per year for a policy that covers my family. My share of that is about $285 per month. If we were to extend Medicare to everybody, my taxes would go up about $1,700 per month. No offense: I think I like the current scheme better.
And, by the way, Medicare does not cover everything, they have a drug formulary that states what drugs are covered and not covered, and they do a lousy job reimbursing doctors for their costs. So…even not looking at costs, it’s hardly a panacea.
- Status