Catholic and Democrat?

[Cat]

I have been trying to understand how someone can be pro-life but anti-universal healthcare.

It depends on how the universal healthcare is administered. Many of us believe that health care administered by the federal government will be mired down with an expensive, top-heavy bureaucracy that will be so complex that the people who need health care will have a difficult time getting it. In the U.S., we have seen this happen time and time again–the federal government is so far-removed from many of us, and when they get hold of a program, they tend to add layer upon layer of regulations, staffing, office buildings, paperwork, etc.–and it costs more and more and more, and the people that are supposed to benefit get less and less and less, and there’s so much waste of monies and other resources.

Public education is a great example of this. We have some of the most expensive public education in the world, but we also have some of the poorest-performing students (on exams) in the world. Many of our kids fail to receive an adequate education from public schools in the U.S. It’s a disgrace, but it just goes to show that the more the federal government gets involved, the more gummed-up everything gets.

The Catholic Church Catechism makes it clear that subsidiarity is the best way to administer government. When the government is close to the situation (e.g., a town government is more likely to administer a good education to their own townskids), the better.

Many of us believe that putting the federal (or national) government in charge of administering a “national health care” program would be a gigantic, expensive disaster!

Please remember that the United States has 50 sovereign states who are united under one federal government. Our Constitution spells out the powers that are reserved for
State governments and which powers are designated to the Federal government.

There is good reason for this. A state like New York is hugely different than a state like North Dakota. The climate, the topography, the ethnicity, the religion, the history–it’s so very different between these two states and between ALL the states.

E.g., Southern California (where Hollywood is) has near-perfect weather all year long. We often hear from movie stars and other residents of Southern California that all of us in the U.S. should ride our bikes more, instead of driving. Well, that’s fine when the weather is clear and 80 degrees! But here in Northern Illinois, we have snow on the ground and bitter cold several months of the years. Most of us couldn’t ride a bike through that even if we wanted to!

Florida has the largest population of old people in the U.S. Their health-care needs are vastly different than Colorado, which has the youngest and most physically-fit population in the U.S. Here in Illinois, an ideal weekend is spent watching the Chicago Bears (or whatever team) play football on television. In Colorado, an ideal weekend is spent mountain biking or skiing. (We don’t have mountains in Northern Illinois.)

So do you understand why many of us believe that the STATES should have the power to administer their own health care program? Each state has a different population of people with their own unique health care issues. One size does NOT fit all here in the United States.

At the moment, no one in the U.S. is denied health care. Many states have state laws that no one can be turned away from an emergency room. Yes, it’s expensive, and I think that we need to encourage a system of free clinics, which is what my city has. These clinics are funded by the wealthy of our city. They provide excellent health care–the lab in my hospital is contracted to do all the lab work for these free clinics.

There are many people in the U.S. who are willing to step up and help a poor person pay for necessary health care. We are a very generous people here in the U.S.

There is the military–this is still an option for young people, and those who join the military receive health care benefits for the rest of their lives. My 83-year old father is currently receiving all of his health care from his Vets benefits, because his workplace health care benefits ran out (he wasn’t supposed to live to be 83!).

Finally, many of us feel strongly that the BEST health care comes from workplace benefits. Companies offer health care benefits in order to attract the best workers. When people have a full-time job, or in some cases, a part-time job, they usually have health care provided through their employer.

But at the moment, the economy in the U.S. is stagnant. Many of us believe that this is because high taxes to the middle class have made it difficult for many of us to spend money. We are not spending money, and this means that there is not much demand for goods and services, and so companies are closing down or laying people off. Many of us believe that reducing the taxes would give us all more money to spend, and this would create more demand for goods and services, and this would create more jobs, which would enable more and more people to have health care.

I hope this over-simplified commentary is helpful to you. Many of us support health care for all–we just don’t want it administered by our federal government.

 

[Tired_Mama]

Many of us believe that putting the federal (or national) government in charge of administering a “national health care” program would be a gigantic, expensive disaster!

At the moment, no one in the U.S. is denied health care. Many states have state laws that no one can be turned away from an emergency room. Yes, it’s expensive, and I think that we need to encourage a system of free clinics, which is what my city has. These clinics are funded by the wealthy of our city. They provide excellent health care–the lab in my hospital is contracted to do all the lab work for these free clinics.

First, there is already a “national health care program,” Medicare, which, while expensive, is not a “disaster.” In fact, Medicare is more cost effective than private payors in that they are able to administer benefits, pay claims, etc. with less overhead than the private insurance companies. Providers are generally paid less by Medicare than commercial payors but it’s often more difficult to collect from a commercial payor than Medicare.

Second, it is simply untrue to say that no one in the US is denied "health care."Under EMTALA, no one can be turned away from an ER and cannot be discharged until they are stabilized but that’s no guarantee of receiving “health care.” What is guaranteed is emergency healthcare which is only a part of what most of us would deem to be “healthcare.” There’s no guarantee of receiving chemotherapy, for example. Read this link for a discussion of EMTALA and cancer.
theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/emtala-and-cancer/

 

[anthrogirl]

It’s estimated that 26000 people die prematurely each year due to lack of healthcare. Free clinics are too few in number to adequately assist all people in need. Most clinics do not offer dental or vision services, a critical healthcare deficit. My sister worked for a clinic as an OB/GYN nurse practitioner. The clinic was closed due to lack of funds a few months ago. She said that it was the only OB/GYN clinic in the area.

So, if you think that free clinics are available and accessible to everyone who needs it, you’re wrong. In my home town, there are no free clinics. The local hospital (my dad was a comptroller there) has a limited amounts of funds that can be used to forgive hospital and ER care bills. If a patient receives care and cannot pay, the hospital tries to work out a payment plan or defers payment until a later date. These bills are usually not written off until the hospital has exhausted all avenues (including the use of collection services). The hospital does not have a clinic. It used to.

 

[Cat]

First, there is already a “national health care program,” Medicare, which, while expensive, is not a “disaster.” In fact, Medicare is more cost effective than private payors in that they are able to administer benefits, pay claims, etc. with less overhead than the private insurance companies. Providers are generally paid less by Medicare than commercial payors but it’s often more difficult to collect from a commercial payor than Medicare.

Second, it is simply untrue to say that no one in the US is denied "health care."Under EMTALA, no one can be turned away from an ER and cannot be discharged until they are stabilized but that’s no guarantee of receiving “health care.” What is guaranteed is emergency healthcare which is only a part of what most of us would deem to be “healthcare.” There’s no guarantee of receiving chemotherapy, for example. Read this link for a discussion of EMTALA and cancer.
theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/emtala-and-cancer/

Medicare and Medicaid are pretty much broke. And our hospital is owed millions by Medicaid in our state, but then, our state (Illinois) is more broke than California, probably because four of our former governers are currently in prison for crimes committed while they were governor.

Heck, in one of the small towns in our state, one of the local city officials was busted because she has stolen around 50 million dollars from her town over the last 20 years. You may have read about her–she was an authority on horse breeding and kept a stable of over 300 prize horses, which were auctioned off a few weeks ago.

So Illinois is just not the best example, I guess. If it weren’t home, I would move away.

 

[Tired_Mama]

Medicare and Medicaid are pretty much broke. And our hospital is owed millions by Medicaid in our state, but then, our state (Illinois) is more broke than California, probably because four of our former governers are currently in prison for crimes committed while they were governor.

Heck, in one of the small towns in our state, one of the local city officials was busted because she has stolen around 50 million dollars from her town over the last 20 years. You may have read about her–she was an authority on horse breeding and kept a stable of over 300 prize horses, which were auctioned off a few weeks ago.

So Illinois is just not the best example, I guess. If it weren’t home, I would move away.

First, no acknowledgement that it’s not true that no one in the US is denied healthcare?

Second, Medicare isn’t broke. Despite what you probably think, Medicare Part A doesn’t contribute to our national debt. Medicare Part A actually has a surplus now. I agree that it’s expensive but it covers the sickest Americans. No private insurance could provide care for that population in a most cost effective way. We know this because privatized Medicare (Medicare Advantage) is actually more expensive than traditional Medicare. Overall, the costs for care provided by private insurance have risen faster than the costs provided by Medicare.

BTW, 4 of our former governors are not in prison. Only 2 of our former governors are currently in prison (I also live in IL). Not to say that’s admirable but facts do matter, e.g. they matter when discussing access to healthcare.

 

[Lucky7]

I admit I have not read the entire thread, but based on the OP, why is this in Family Life and not Catholic News or some other room?

 

[kelvinf]

But the right of a human being to live is basic. If you don’t care about right to life, then you will not have the right disposition to care for the poor, the sick, and all the misfortunate human beings. After all, why not just abort them? Then we wouldn’t have poor, sick, or disabled people.

That is the attitude that many Americans have–“it’s better to abort the child than allow it to be born into poverty and misery.” You see, they want to define a person’s right to life by the “quality” of their life.

Think about it–it’s actually quite horrific. If someone other than you decides that you have a miserable life, or the potential for a miserable life, you must die so that you won’t have the miserable life. That’s really devilish, but that’s what many, many MANY people in the United States believe! Really!

So we need to get our thinking in order–being against abortion is the stepping stone to caring for all the other needs. When people recognize the infinite value of ALL humans, we will want to take care of those who are less fortunate. But when we allow many humans to die just because they are unwanted, we develop a callous attitude towards the less fortunate.

Again, we care about the lives of the most vulnerable amongst us and that list is long. If there was no poverty and the other things we care about, then we could focus only on abortion. But there is abortion, there are the sick, there are the elderly, single moms etc. We can’t focus on just one of them.

 

[kelvinf]

It depends on how the universal healthcare is administered. Many of us believe that health care administered by the federal government will be mired down with an expensive, top-heavy bureaucracy that will be so complex that the people who need health care will have a difficult time getting it. In the U.S., we have seen this happen time and time again–the federal government is so far-removed from many of us, and when they get hold of a program, they tend to add layer upon layer of regulations, staffing, office buildings, paperwork, etc.–and it costs more and more and more, and the people that are supposed to benefit get less and less and less, and there’s so much waste of monies and other resources.

Public education is a great example of this. We have some of the most expensive public education in the world, but we also have some of the poorest-performing students (on exams) in the world. Many of our kids fail to receive an adequate education from public schools in the U.S. It’s a disgrace, but it just goes to show that the more the federal government gets involved, the more gummed-up everything gets.

The Catholic Church Catechism makes it clear that subsidiarity is the best way to administer government. When the government is close to the situation (e.g., a town government is more likely to administer a good education to their own townskids), the better.

…

E.g., Southern California (where Hollywood is) has near-perfect weather all year long. We often hear from movie stars and other residents of Southern California that all of us in the U.S. should ride our bikes more, instead of driving. Well, that’s fine when the weather is clear and 80 degrees! But here in Northern Illinois, we have snow on the ground and bitter cold several months of the years. Most of us couldn’t ride a bike through that even if we wanted to!
…

I hope this over-simplified commentary is helpful to you. Many of us support health care for all–we just don’t want it administered by our federal government.

Thank you very much for the insight and details!

I perfectly understand the issues you raise and I believe in the principle of subsidiarity.
The two Jesuits, Oswald von Nell-Breuning (1890–1991) and Gustav Gundlach (1892–1963), exerted key influence on the social thinking of German Catholicism in the early and middle years of the Federal Republic. Gundlach formulated the subsidiarity principle in the encyclical “Quadragesimo Anno” (1931). It says that (financial) matters ought to be handled by the smallest competent authorities such as communities and municipalities themselves. Only when a particular task cannot be undertaken adequately by a ‘low’ level will it be handed ‘up’ to a higher level of government.

Initially, I thought Romney was also against health care but now it seems as if he only wants to modify it or replace it with his own. Which means, he also believes health care is a matter of the federal government. Why? If states each have their own health care programme, how would they solve the mobility problem? Health care can’t be adequately handled by states. Hence federal intervention is necessary. All the differences between states that you rightly mentioned could be taken into consideration in the universal health care programme.

Yes, bureaucracy can be an issue. So the effort used to oppose health care could be channelled to get rid of unnecessary bureaucracy.

Again, there are certain things that states can’t adequately do and education is one of them for example. Germany is currently suffering from the problem that, when one moves to another state, he or she is likely to be faced with a completely different school system. Now, the federal government is thinking of stepping in. And I agree because it is problematic when different states have different school systems. That’s the reality.

I think what’s killing America is ideology: low taxes vs high taxes; big government vs small government etc. We should always permit reason rather than ideology.

Re taxes, sometimes, higher taxes are necessary (e.g. to pay for a war.) Fact checkers say that the rise in US debt over the past years is partly due to the Bush tax cuts. You can’t blindly cut taxes only to go and borrow money.

Also, many economic theories haven’t worked. I remember the German Chancellor saying that, around 1969, the proposed principle was for governments to be spending. That governments could borrow money and spend. That, that would create jobs, the economy will grow and generate enough money to pay back the debts. Well, it didn’t work. That’s why she is embarking on tough austerity measures across Europe.

After those banks and co were rescued and money was pumped into the economy, people started asking why the guys were not employing as was expected.

I believe the current economic situation is very complex. There is no perfect solution(!) and I don’t believe any one person be it Obama or Romney should be insisting that he has the solution.

There is no guarantee that tax cuts will cause people to spend and companies to employ. I am sure that has been tried before. In fact, after the crisis, we have all learned about spending unnecessarily.

What I believe is politicians, economists, business owners and consumers coming together and developing a new model for the current economic situation. If the model doesn’t work, then they should come together again and try to come up with something new. But ideologies alone will take us nowhere.

 

[kelvinf]

I admit I have not read the entire thread, but based on the OP, why is this in Family Life and not Catholic News or some other room?

Because it’s not news. And the thread is pretty old. Maybe there was no other section at that time.

 

[CroCatholic]

In regards to other issues being “ignored” by Catholics… I don’t think they are being ignored, I think that you deal with the greatest injustices first. If someone is being denied medical assistance, it is an injustice but it pales in comparison to the millions of children who’s lives have been snuffed out. MILLIONS… Murder trumps lack of resources in my books…

 

[reptilewriter]

I’m a very new Catholic but am I missing something? How can any Catholic vote a Democratic ticket when it is full of pro choice er’s? Is sanctity of life not an absolute unbending tenent of the Catholic church? I think I even remember seeing on this forum the comment that it is a mortal sin to vote for someone like Obama who is rabidly pro abortion. What gives here?

 

[TimeEntrance]

Soooo…

My question is this,
What issue is more important to you than abortion as a Catholic?

Thanks,
Nonie

How about nuclear holocaust?

Voting for a Republican is not going to make abortion illegal. Voting for a Democrat is not going to magically transform a poor neighborhood into a middle-class one (gentrification aside).

Democracy is what allows legalized abortion to go on anyways. A Catholic theocracy or a Catholic monarchy would likely not allow legalized abortion.

So, there you have. American democracy is evil and Jesus never came to promote suffrage and republicanism. Glad we cleared that up.

Good day.