Affordable Health Care is a Christian Act

[je333]

Personally I am all for universal health care with preferably a single payer system. However, I would only be for it so long as objectionable things that some people consider “health care” like abortion and contraceptives were left out.

I agree with you and I will join you and people worldwide in rosary prayer The rosary prayer is already in progress and at the 3rd luminous mystery which is the proclamation of the kingdom of God. im also the number 111 when joined. i hope there’s meaning to all of these.

 

[Viki63]

Sorry, the health insurance system itself is inherently a flawed system. There is no way that the government can cut costs & make it “better” except to cap prices and therefore ration care. And even that will put not only insurance companies but also doctors and hospitals out of business because costs will continue to sore while revenue remains stagnant.

Even if you confiscated the liquid assets and property of every “rich” person in the country, basically squeezing them dry, and putting that money into the hc system it would only be a drop in the ocean that is hc costs.

The more people you put on the rolls, the more “comprehensive” you make it or the more benefits you pile on, the more you raise costs. It is a moster that will devour itself and our entire economy along with it.

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.

 

[Viki63]

Personally I am all for universal health care with preferably a single payer system. However, I would only be for it so long as objectionable things that some people consider “health care” like abortion and contraceptives were left out.

I totally agree with you. Too many women are falling for the lie that abortion and birth control are essentials for women’s health, when they are nothing of the kind. Half the babies killed by abortion are female, how about their right to health?
Let’s let people pay for their own abortions and contraceptives if they want them.

 

[Viki63]

I have no flat screen TV (mine is fifteen years old), a very old computer that was given to me, and no video games. I do not own a smart phone. I haven’t a stick of furniture in my house that wasn’t given to me used or picked up from someone’s curbside discards.I have worked–hard–most of my life as has my husband, until he became disabled due to liver failure (this was NOT due to drinking, in case you were wondering). I would happily be willing to pay a reasonable amount considering my circumstances and income for health insurance/care. However, that is not available here. I consider myself a very resourceful person. However, resources–medical and otherwise–are usually completely or mostly inaccessible for those who are anything except mired in the most grueling of poverty. If your family makes even a small income from dad’s disability you are far too rich–in my state–to qualify for any assistance. I cannot see a dentist, period. I cannot get dentures. I cannot eat food due to this. I can no longer afford the $50 copay and the medication cost and the lab costs for my chronic diseases such as high blood pressure, extreme anxiety, Lupus, and GERD. I owe the local E.R. over 88 thousand dollars in bills I cannot pay. I cannot work as I have to care for my husband and special needs child.

Sorry I’m not enough of a “rugged individualist” for you, but it seems every other first world country knows that not everyone in their country is in a position to pay full cost, charge-what-you-will medical care and drug bills or to obtain insurance. IN my case right now the only way to obtain ANY type of insurance would be to get on the state High Risk Pool program, which about ten years ago we had my husband on briefly. It cost $900 per month and covered NO doctor visits, NO medication, no routine ANYTHING–ONLY catastrophic care, and even then there was a HUGE deductible.

All this rugged, pull yourself up by your bootstraps talk sounds well and good but it just isn’t reality. That is why we are the ONLY first world country left who lets our people go without such basics as food, housing and medical care.

Zenith, I am so sorry to hear your story. I am a nurse, and this kind of thing is not unusual, to our shame. When I retire, I am thinking of moving to Canada where my son lives, because at least I will not go bankrupt to pay my husband’s medical bills.
I’m sure you have looked into programs to help with medication costs – each manufacturer of meds has programs to help people who can’t afford them. Also doctors will sometimes have samples to give out.
Our system is outrageous, and the ACA will not help in the long run, even though there are some good points to it. We have picked the wrong time to be elderly in America.

 

[markomalley]

Then Health Care should be the responsibility of the Church don’t you think? But since the Church don’t provide free health care and free food then the government must step in to help those who are neglected, abandoned, outcast, oppressed, marginalized, homeless, etc. And those act that Obama is doing to help the poor are indeed very Christian/religious in nature. I wish there was more Mother Theresas, Padre Pios, Jesuses in our Catholic Church to tackle the problems of the poor people who don’t have any access to medical care and other basic needs.

First of all, I am not saying that the Church should provide free health care for all. No more so than I am saying the Church should provide free education for all children.

Sure, in an ideal world, there would be far more vocations to the active religious life than there are (of course, in that same ideal world, Catholics would also follow the teachings of the Church on the subject of contraception and abortion, would take their families to Mass each week, would hear solid homilies, would practice popular piety at home, etc., etc., etc.) – thus taking up a major portion of the personnel expenses incurred by both hospitals and schools.

But we don’t live in that ideal world, do we? Catholics these days have just as small a families, on norm, as anybody else (indicating that there are either horrible infertility problems or that most utterly ignore Humanae Vitae). Catholics are horribly parsimonious on the subject of tithing (when the Church’s pastors have to beg and plead for Catholics to give 4 or 5 percent of income, that’s pretty bad)

That increases expenses. And since saints who have the ability to minister gifts of (physical) healings or miracles are extraordinarily rare, the Church has to depend upon ordinary medicine using lay people who have the right, under commutative justice, to be properly compensated for the labor they provide – whether the employer is another lay person or is the Church.

Consequently, the network of Catholic hospitals that were established throughout the country and throughout the world expressly for the purpose of providing charity care are no longer in the position of being able to do what they used to do (and, since I brought up education, tuition in Catholic schools has also, consequently, skyrocketed, as well, for the same exact reason).

It is really sad when one thinks of it.

Unfortunately, having the State step in is not the answer. As I have said many times before ad nauseum, and as The Grey Pilgrim is currently saying, it makes the problems worse.

Pope Bl. John XXIII, of happy memory, made the following statement in his encyclical letter Mater et Magistra. I have quoted it before and will quote it again:

no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. Since, therefore, it proposes a form of social organization which aims solely at production, it places too severe a restraint on human liberty, at the same time flouting the true notion of social authority.

The key parts of the quote are obviously bolded. We have, with the increase of government programs, become this society that is only concerned with material well being. We have, with the increase in government programs, completely forgotten about the state of peoples’ souls. We can see that a cradle-to-grave society, such as has been established in Western Europe, has been far more effective at removing people from the Church than atheistic communism, with its organized persecutions, has ever been in places like Russia or China. Just as John XXIII stated all the way back in 1961.

We, in the US, are not quite there yet. But we are moving, rapidly, in that direction. An increase in government programs will continue to push us in that direction, as well. (Thank God for the US bishops pushing back on the government’s current efforts to do just that)

This is not to say that society should not provide some sort of a “safety net” for those who are unable to provide for their own families’ needs. In fact, there are ways where that can be done that would not be nearly as morally objectionable as creating a one-size-fits-all scheme such as Obama’s government is in the process of doing.

Although I don’t think it ideal, the model that is used in Costa Rica is actually far more Christian than what Obama is foisting upon our society. As an example.

 

[markomalley]

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.

Here’s a little secret, Viki. Even in a “single payer” system, there is still bureaucracy. There are still administrative expenses to deal with. Even if you were to go to a totally nationalized system (i.e., the government appropriating literally every hospital, doctor’s office, pharmaceutical company, and medical supply manufacturer…while forcing all medical people to become government employees or change their professions), you would still have these costs. And, at the national level, in such a system, there are three ways to deal with it (and three ways only):

1. Increase taxes. Problem: when you increase taxes, people figure out a way to get around those taxes or they decide they don’t want to play any more (there are thousands of people each year who voluntarily renounce their citizenship solely because they don’t want to deal with the IRS. A draconian tax increase would just cause those numbers to rise)
2. Print more money. Problem: when you print more money, all the money that’s already in the system is devalued, eventually making everything more expensive. (Ever notice that everything cost more in the past couple of years? That’s because they have tried that strategy a couple times already. They called it “QE1” and “QE2”)
3. Limit the resources you put into the system. Limit personnel salaries for employees. Limit the amount of plant and equipment that you purchase. Limit the supplies that go into the system. Problem with that is that you will have increased wait times for services and decreased availability of treatments when you actually need them.

For example (from official government statistics), here is a representation of wait times for an ordinary hospital admission ((name removed by moderator)atient or day case) in Scotland (a single payer system):

i.imgur.com/wNw1G.gif

I don’t know about you, but I find it utterly unacceptable that over 60% of the people have to wait 3 weeks or more to be seen. I don’t care what the rationale is, that is ridiculous. But that happens when you deal with a non-competitive system.

As to the subject of “insurance company coffers”, those coffers (profits) take in around 5-6% (at most) of the the total revenue gotten by those companies. The rest of the money is shelled out to providers or is eaten up by administrative expenses (such as salaries for claims processors).

I don’t like insurance companies, as I have repeatedly stated before, because insurance companies violate the principle of subsidiarity. Increased centralization above and beyond insurance companies will just make things worse.

 

[davidmlamb]

I have no flat screen TV (mine is fifteen years old), a very old computer that was given to me, and no video games. I do not own a smart phone. I haven’t a stick of furniture in my house that wasn’t given to me used or picked up from someone’s curbside discards.I have worked–hard–most of my life as has my husband, until he became disabled due to liver failure (this was NOT due to drinking, in case you were wondering). I would happily be willing to pay a reasonable amount considering my circumstances and income for health insurance/care. However, that is not available here. I consider myself a very resourceful person. However, resources–medical and otherwise–are usually completely or mostly inaccessible for those who are anything except mired in the most grueling of poverty. If your family makes even a small income from dad’s disability you are far too rich–in my state–to qualify for any assistance. I cannot see a dentist, period. I cannot get dentures. I cannot eat food due to this. I can no longer afford the $50 copay and the medication cost and the lab costs for my chronic diseases such as high blood pressure, extreme anxiety, Lupus, and GERD. I owe the local E.R. over 88 thousand dollars in bills I cannot pay. I cannot work as I have to care for my husband and special needs child.

Sorry I’m not enough of a “rugged individualist” for you, but it seems every other first world country knows that not everyone in their country is in a position to pay full cost, charge-what-you-will medical care and drug bills or to obtain insurance. IN my case right now the only way to obtain ANY type of insurance would be to get on the state High Risk Pool program, which about ten years ago we had my husband on briefly. It cost $900 per month and covered NO doctor visits, NO medication, no routine ANYTHING–ONLY catastrophic care, and even then there was a HUGE deductible.

All this rugged, pull yourself up by your bootstraps talk sounds well and good but it just isn’t reality. That is why we are the ONLY first world country left who lets our people go without such basics as food, housing and medical care.

You are being euthenized with the complete blessings of right wing conservative Catholics. Let us hear what the CCC say’s about the governments role in taking care of its citizens.

*CCC 2288 Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good.

Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance. *

I am fighting very hard for your life and dignity. Please turn to your rosary devotional and say it faithfully at least once a day. In between decades offer up your suffering to God and ask him to come to your assistance and grant you justice. 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 may also contact me by e-mail davidmlamb@saol.com. I want to pray for you and your family so that you may be granted justice and mercy.

Peace,

David

 

[davidmlamb]

Unfortunately, having the State step in is not the answer. As I have said many times before ad nauseum, and as The Grey Pilgrim is currently saying, it makes the problems worse.

Pope Bl. John XXIII, of happy memory, made the following statement in his encyclical letter Mater et Magistra. I have quoted it before and will quote it again:

no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. Since, therefore, it proposes a form of social organization which aims solely at production, it places too severe a restraint on human liberty, at the same time flouting the true notion of social authority.

So you are of course going to reject Social Security and Medicare right? The Socialism that John XXIII was referring too was Marxist Socialism where the economy collectively owns labor. It is not referring to the state providing benefits such as health care, social security, education…ect. If that was the case than the church would be crying out against every other country that provides health care and social security to its citizens as a public benefit. Marxist Socialism is based on atheistic humanism. The “Socialism” we see in Italy for example is based on the foundation of faith. Italy provides many public benefits to its citizen including social assistance, health care, dental care, social security, and public housing for lower income. Yet the state religion of Italy is Catholicism and prayer is required in their public schools as well as crucifix’s in the classroom. Confusing this with Socialism is intellectual dishonesty.

David

 

[Brendan]

So you are of course going to reject Social Security and Medicare right? The Socialism that John XXIII was referring too was Marxist Socialism where the economy collectively owns labor.
David

Except that Blessed John referred to it specifically as 'moderate socialism", and those that focus only on material well being.

How do you define 'moderate socialism"

There are quite a number of political parties in Europe, both now and at the time of Pope John XXIII that describe themselves as socialist, but do not claim to own the labor of the workers themselves. Did Pope John XXIII misunderstand their platforms? Do we misunderstand them now?

 

[markomalley]

Except that Blessed John referred to it specifically as 'moderate socialism", and those that focus only on material well being.

How do you define 'moderate socialism"

There are quite a number of political parties in Europe, both now and at the time of Pope John XXIII that describe themselves as socialist, but do not claim to own the labor of the workers themselves. Did Pope John XXIII misunderstand their platforms? Do we misunderstand them now?

And Bl John Paul II identified the same thing as the ‘’ Social Assistance State’’ and attributed the cause to a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the State in society.

 

[davidmlamb]

With the costs of healthcare today I think it is obvious that some type of government mandated universal healthcare program is the only way that future Americans will be able to access affordable healthcare. But the Affordable Health Care Act is a sham. It doesn’t make healthcare either more affordable or accessible. The people that support it always say “it’s a step in the right direction.” That’s ridiculous. The government could make healthcare affordable and accessible with a stroke of a pen. President Obama promised change. All we got was a common, same old story politician who cares nothing about keeping any of his campaign promises and doesn’t even try to hide it. He is just another person who craves power and wanted to president to satiate those desires. He doesn’t give two cents for poor people or people lacking medical care. He only cares about himself and remaining in power as long as he can. He sees the poor as suckers who will vote for him if he tells them he will give them free money from the government.

Balian,

The Affordable Health Care Act of 2010 is more of a health care insurance reform. I do believe it is a step in the right direction. The President is not a King, he just cannot give us what we really need (a single payer medicare for all system) with the stroke of a pen. Congress makes these laws and all the president can do is sign the bill into law. What we have now is something we can build on but Congress is the only ones who can make laws and policies and as long as we have right wing conservatives impeding the common good people are going to go without health care and many will die as a result.

It is up to the voters to make prudential judgments about these things when we elect our representatives and send them to Washington. I believe that right wing conservatism is a demonic spirit disguised as an angel of light and has corrupted the souls of many Christians.

*Timothy 4:1-2
1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; *

David

 

[Brendan]

I believe that right wing conservatism is a demonic spirit disguised as an angel of light and has corrupted the souls of many Christians. ]

And, as St. Thomas Aquinas noted, belief does not determine reality. I could believe that it is 90 degrees and Sunny outside this morning, but that does not make it true

 

[davidmlamb]

I did say “responsible”. Ever hear of the Road to Nowhere? Education is non-existent in spite of the trillions spent.

Then I would suggest you do likewise. You have a computer; sell it. You have internet access; get rid of it. Sell your TV and cancel your satellite subscription. Sell everything you have and give the money to the poor. After you’ve done all that, then, and only then, will you have some moral authority to tell others what to do with their hard-earned money.

I have done all that! I have no assets of my own. So now you can submit to my “moral authority.” But it is not I who tells others to do with their money. It is God. Again all the wealth of the world including “your” money belongs to God and you are a stewart of that wealth. The Bible tells us too much is given much more is required."

*Luke 12:47-49
47 “That servant who knows his master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. *

David

 

[davidmlamb]

And, as St. Thomas Aquinas noted, belief does not determine reality. I could believe that it is 90 degrees and Sunny outside this morning, but that does not make it true

And neither does belief neccassarily negate the reality of that belief. I can also rightly believe “it is 90 degrees and Sunny outside this morning,” and could be corect. Let us hear the Words of Pope Paul VI

*However, certain concepts have somehow arisen out of these new conditions and insinuated themselves into the fabric of human society. These concepts present profit as the chief spur to economic progress, free competition as the guiding norm of economics, and private ownership of the means of production as an absolute right, having no limits nor concomitant social obligations.

**This unbridled liberalism paves the way for a particular type of tyranny, rightly condemned by Our predecessor Pius XI, for it results in the “international imperialism of money.” Such improper manipulations of economic forces can never be condemned enough; let it be said once again that economics is supposed to be in the service of man. ***

But if it is true that a type of capitalism, as it is commonly called, has given rise to hardships, unjust practices, and fratricidal conflicts that persist to this day, it would be a mistake to attribute these evils to the rise of industrialization itself, for they really derive from the pernicious economic concepts that grew up along with it. We must in all fairness acknowledge the vital role played by labor systemization and industrial organization in the task of development.

David

 

[davidmlamb]

Except that Blessed John referred to it specifically as 'moderate socialism", and those that focus only on material well being.

How do you define 'moderate socialism"

There are quite a number of political parties in Europe, both now and at the time of Pope John XXIII that describe themselves as socialist, but do not claim to own the labor of the workers themselves. Did Pope John XXIII misunderstand their platforms? Do we misunderstand them now?

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:

*2288 Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good.

Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance.

1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, "authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse."23

1908 …the common good requires the social well-being and development of the group itself. Development is the epitome of all social duties. **Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on.28 ***

Recently the USCCB sent a letter to congress condemning their budget as being immoral because it cut public assistance to the weak and the vulnerable. Not one time has the Vatican or the USCCB condemned Universal Health Care, Medicare, or Social Security as being “socialism.” Again Brandon you are engaging in intellectual dishonesty.

David

 

[BobCatholic]

I suppose you meant America, regarding some issues I think you have, regarding some others no, but it is not a totalitarian society because of that. But in the end it doesn’t matter what I think, you are the ones who have to decide what happens with your country.

We are not able to decide what happens with our country.

We have a government of the cronies, for the cronies, by the cronies. Only the cronies decide.

 

[JimG]

Regardless of whether federalized health care is a good idea or not, I can certainly not support the current law, because its enforcement agency, the dept of Health and Human Services, makes the loss of religious freedom an essential element of that law. It is for this reason that every bishop in the U.S. has opposed the HHS mandate forcing Catholic institutions to violate their consciences. They have said, in fact, that Catholic institutions simply cannot comply with the mandate. And a bureaucracy that powerful certainly has the power to make, for example, abortion, a required coverage in a future mandate. It is a dangerous situation to cede our consciences to the HHS.

 

[je333]

First of all, I am not saying that the Church should provide free health care for all. No more so than I am saying the Church should provide free education for all children.

Sure, in an ideal world, there would be far more vocations to the active religious life than there are (of course, in that same ideal world, Catholics would also follow the teachings of the Church on the subject of contraception and abortion, would take their families to Mass each week, would hear solid homilies, would practice popular piety at home, etc., etc., etc.) – thus taking up a major portion of the personnel expenses incurred by both hospitals and schools.

But we don’t live in that ideal world, do we? Catholics these days have just as small a families, on norm, as anybody else (indicating that there are either horrible infertility problems or that most utterly ignore Humanae Vitae). Catholics are horribly parsimonious on the subject of tithing (when the Church’s pastors have to beg and plead for Catholics to give 4 or 5 percent of income, that’s pretty bad)

That increases expenses. And since saints who have the ability to minister gifts of (physical) healings or miracles are extraordinarily rare, the Church has to depend upon ordinary medicine using lay people who have the right, under commutative justice, to be properly compensated for the labor they provide – whether the employer is another lay person or is the Church.

Consequently, the network of Catholic hospitals that were established throughout the country and throughout the world expressly for the purpose of providing charity care are no longer in the position of being able to do what they used to do (and, since I brought up education, tuition in Catholic schools has also, consequently, skyrocketed, as well, for the same exact reason).

It is really sad when one thinks of it.

Unfortunately, having the State step in is not the answer. As I have said many times before ad nauseum, and as The Grey Pilgrim is currently saying, it makes the problems worse.

Pope Bl. John XXIII, of happy memory, made the following statement in his encyclical letter Mater et Magistra. I have quoted it before and will quote it again:

no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. Since, therefore, it proposes a form of social organization which aims solely at production, it places too severe a restraint on human liberty, at the same time flouting the true notion of social authority.

The key parts of the quote are obviously bolded. We have, with the increase of government programs, become this society that is only concerned with material well being. We have, with the increase in government programs, completely forgotten about the state of peoples’ souls. We can see that a cradle-to-grave society, such as has been established in Western Europe, has been far more effective at removing people from the Church than atheistic communism, with its organized persecutions, has ever been in places like Russia or China. Just as John XXIII stated all the way back in 1961.

We, in the US, are not quite there yet. But we are moving, rapidly, in that direction. An increase in government programs will continue to push us in that direction, as well. (Thank God for the US bishops pushing back on the government’s current efforts to do just that)

This is not to say that society should not provide some sort of a “safety net” for those who are unable to provide for their own families’ needs. In fact, there are ways where that can be done that would not be nearly as morally objectionable as creating a one-size-fits-all scheme such as Obama’s government is in the process of doing.

Although I don’t think it ideal, the model that is used in Costa Rica is actually far more Christian than what Obama is foisting upon our society. As an example.

We need to have a political, social and economic reform and we are heading in that direction. Change affects us all and it sometimes rattles us and we get into a panic mode but we have to pray and trust God that He will guide our country to a peaceful and prosperous future. To get there, we have to go thru some rough roads.

Should we approach a socialistic which leads to communistic system, let’s pray that our religious freedom will not be taken away. Theistic Socialism/Communism is a good thing! don’t you think?

COMMUNISM

[French communisme, from commun, common, from Old French, from Latin commnis; see commune2.

com·mune 1 (k-myn)
intr.v. com·muned, com·mun·ing, com·munes

1. To be in a state of intimate, heightened sensitivity and receptivity, as with one’s surroundings: hikers communing with nature.
2. To receive the Eucharist.

Communism is a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of a classless, [COLOR=“Red”]moneyless, revolutionary and stateless socialist society structured upon common ownership of the means of production.

Communism
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

AUTOCRATIC, ATHEISTIC, MILITARISTIC COMMUNISM on the other hand is EVIL!

 

[davidmlamb]

Regardless of whether federalized health care is a good idea or not, I can certainly not support the current law, because its enforcement agency, the dept of Health and Human Services, makes the loss of religious freedom an essential element of that law. It is for this reason that every bishop in the U.S. has opposed the HHS mandate forcing Catholic institutions to violate their consciences. They have said, in fact, that Catholic institutions simply cannot comply with the mandate. And a bureaucracy that powerful certainly has the power to make, for example, abortion, a required coverage in a future mandate. It is a dangerous situation to cede our consciences to the HHS.

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

 

[je333]

You are being euthenized with the complete blessings of right wing conservative Catholics. Let us hear what the CCC say’s about the governments role in taking care of its citizens.

*CCC 2288 Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good.

Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance. *

I am fighting very hard for your life and dignity. Please turn to your rosary devotional and say it faithfully at least once a day. In between decades offer up your suffering to God and ask him to come to your assistance and grant you justice. 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 may also contact me by e-mail davidmlamb@saol.com. I want to pray for you and your family so that you may be granted justice and mercy.

Peace,

David

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.