Catholics VS Health Care in America: Morally Embarrassing

  • Thread starter Thread starter MindOverMatter2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I lack the education in this area to adequately respond to MindOverMatter2’s assertions, but I do think it is absurd to claim that opposing state-sponsored healthcare is incompatible with Catholic morality. A more defensible claim would be that state-sponsored healthcare is consistent with Catholic morality. I wonder if MindOverMatter2 has read any thoughtful Catholic critics of his views. That is what I would do, at least. I know that the average forum poster simply does not have the specialized education to even respond to my views, let alone refute them.
 
I am trying to get a straight answer from you. Are you saying that millions of people suffer and die in the U.S. because of no health care? Is that each year or what do you mean?
“According to the U.S. Census Bureau data released Tuesday September 13th, 2011, the nation’s poverty rate rose to 15.1% (46.2 million) in 2010,[2] up from 14.3% (approximately 43.6 million) in 2009 and to its highest level since 1993.”

“An estimated 45 million Americans, or 15.6 percent of the population, was uninsured in 2003, up from 15.2 percent in 2002, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s most recent data.
“The number of uninsured has been growing the last several years,” said Catherine Hoffman, senior researcher and associate director of the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured.
She blamed, among other things, the sluggish economy and growing cost of health care for the decrease in coverage. As the cost of health insurance has escalated, companies have opted to pass those higher premiums on to employees or to not provide coverage.
“We are in the midst of a weak economy,” said Paul Fronstin, director of health research, at the Employee Benefit Research Institute. “That means fewer jobs and fewer people with coverage.”
Job-based coverage – one of the major sources of health insurance in the United States – dropped from 61.5 percent in 2002 to 60.4 percent in 2003, according to the US Census Bureau.
“If you don’t get it through your employer, you don’t have many options for affordable coverage,” said Sara Collins, senior program officer at the Commonwealth Fund. “That means you have huge numbers of people who don’t have consistent, affordable access to the healthcare system.”
Even when employers provide insurance, she said, a growing number of people opt out of coverage because they can’t afford the premiums.
The cost of employer-sponsored covered increased by 13.9 percent between 2002 and 2003, according to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
The likelihood of coverage increases with income, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
Only 41 percent of workers who earn less than $10 an hour had employer-provided insurance while 88 percent of those earning at least $15 an hour received it.
That’s a dangerous signal because a growing number of jobs are in the lower-paying service sector.
An estimated 80 percent of the uninsured are people like Jones who are employed or have a family member who is in the work force. They don’t have coverage because their employer doesn’t provide insurance or they can’t afford the employee premiums.
According to Kaiser, the average monthly premium is $282 for an individual and $756 for a family. That means a family would spend more than $9,000 a year for healthcare coverage.
The lack of coverage has a huge impact on the health and productivity of the uninsured as well as on local hospitals and governments, which try to meet their needs.
The Institute of Medicine has estimated that providing health insurance to those without coverage would save between $65 billion and $130 billion a year because **it would increase life expectancies **and worker productivity and would lower healthcare costs. The Institute, a branch of the National Academy of Sciences, estimates that federal, state and local governments spend about $30 billion a year to pay hospitals and clinics for services they provide to the uninsured.”
money.cnn.com/2004/12/22/news/economy/poverty_healthcare/index.htm
Who do you think does a better job of this than the U.S.?
Nations with national health services.
Can you be specific and site a source to your bitterness to the U.S.?
An argumentum ad hominem and a misrepresentation. I have no bitterness towards the U.S. and have many American friends. 🤷
 
I lack the education in this area to adequately respond to MindOverMatter2’s
Then the best thing to do is get an education in matters of morality and the faith.

You never know, you might just save yourself from “Moral Embarrassment”.
 
I can see why others have stopped replying to what you say. You pick and choose what you want to reply to and ignore everything except your tunnel focus, which seems to be making things up about something that you know little about.
I focus on the topic without introducing red herrings and making false statements about others.

As for “ignoring everything” you have failed to consider the statistics in my last post which are directly relevant to the topic…
 
Then the best thing to do is get an education in matters of morality and the faith.

You never know, you might just save yourself from “Moral Embarrassment”.
I did not say that I lack an education in matters of morality and faith. Rather, I lack an education on matters involving political philosophy, economic systems, and how both interact with the moral dimension. I think your view presupposes much on both of the aforementioned issues, and I think there is definitely room for Catholics to legitimately disagree.

So have you read thoughtful Catholic critics of your views? Most of the Catholic thinkers on the internet would strongly disagree with you - Tom Woods and Ed Feser, for instance.
 
“According to the U.S. Census Bureau data released Tuesday September 13th, 2011, the nation’s poverty rate rose to 15.1% (46.2 million) in 2010,[2] up from 14.3% (approximately 43.6 million) in 2009 and to its highest level since 1993.”

“An estimated 45 million Americans, or 15.6 percent of the population, was uninsured in 2003, up from 15.2 percent in 2002, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s most recent data.
“The number of uninsured has been growing the last several years,” said Catherine Hoffman, senior researcher and associate director of the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured.
She blamed, among other things, the sluggish economy and growing cost of health care for the decrease in coverage. As the cost of health insurance has escalated, companies have opted to pass those higher premiums on to employees or to not provide coverage.
“We are in the midst of a weak economy,” said Paul Fronstin, director of health research, at the Employee Benefit Research Institute. “That means fewer jobs and fewer people with coverage.”
Job-based coverage – one of the major sources of health insurance in the United States – dropped from 61.5 percent in 2002 to 60.4 percent in 2003, according to the US Census Bureau.
“If you don’t get it through your employer, you don’t have many options for affordable coverage,” said Sara Collins, senior program officer at the Commonwealth Fund. “That means you have huge numbers of people who don’t have consistent, affordable access to the healthcare system.”
Even when employers provide insurance, she said, a growing number of people opt out of coverage because they can’t afford the premiums.
The cost of employer-sponsored covered increased by 13.9 percent between 2002 and 2003, according to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
The likelihood of coverage increases with income, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
Only 41 percent of workers who earn less than $10 an hour had employer-provided insurance while 88 percent of those earning at least $15 an hour received it.
That’s a dangerous signal because a growing number of jobs are in the lower-paying service sector.
An estimated 80 percent of the uninsured are people like Jones who are employed or have a family member who is in the work force. They don’t have coverage because their employer doesn’t provide insurance or they can’t afford the employee premiums.
According to Kaiser, the average monthly premium is $282 for an individual and $756 for a family. That means a family would spend more than $9,000 a year for healthcare coverage.
The lack of coverage has a huge impact on the health and productivity of the uninsured as well as on local hospitals and governments, which try to meet their needs.
The Institute of Medicine has estimated that providing health insurance to those without coverage would save between $65 billion and $130 billion a year because **it would increase life expectancies **and worker productivity and would lower healthcare costs. The Institute, a branch of the National Academy of Sciences, estimates that federal, state and local governments spend about $30 billion a year to pay hospitals and clinics for services they provide to the uninsured.”
money.cnn.com/2004/12/22/news/economy/poverty_healthcare/index.htm
Nations with national health services.

An argumentum ad hominem and a misrepresentation. I have no bitterness towards the U.S. and have many American friends. 🤷
These statistics are a far cry from millions suffer and die. You should not accuse anyone of misrepresenting when you discuss in the way you have. God Bless, spew your misrepresentations to others.
 
These statistics are a far cry from millions suffer and die. You should not accuse anyone of misrepresenting when you discuss in the way you have. God Bless, spew your misrepresentations to others.
“God Bless” and “spew” in the same breath!

You obviously are not one of those without health care; otherwise you wouldn’t be so callous about those who are living in poverty and whose** life expectancy** is decreased…
 
I did not say that I lack an education in morality and ethics. I just lack an education in matters involving theories on the role of government, economic systems, and the interaction between the moral dimension and governments. I think your view presupposes a lot of underlying stances on the aforementioned issues, and I think there is plenty of room for Catholics to legitimately disagree on those stances.

So have you read thoughtful Catholic critics of your view? Most of the Catholic intellgentsia on the internet would probably vigorously disagree with you, Tom Woods and Ed Feser for instance.
I have not read Ed Feser’s defence personally (bright when it comes to metaphysics; but obviously not too bright when it comes to discerning the value of a human being), but I am fully aware of the ideology that inconsistently tries to marry the Catholic faith with a morally indifferent state system, especially in regards to the needs of the poor; until of course it starts to effect them personally, and then suddenly the state is not supposed to be morally indifferent after all.

There is one fundamental fact which cannot be ignored, and I refuse to ignore it. The value of a human life is always worth more than the right to private property. The right to private property is not absolute, and such is the case for good reason. The extreme individualism that these people support in matters of economics is clearly not in line with Church teaching. You only have to read the Catechism to see that. It is true that the Church rejects socialism, but it certainly does not support the kind of indifferent state capitalism that is being espoused on this thread.
 
I know people who have returned from the US and are appalled by the lack of health care. Some have had a colossal bill for hospital treatment after an accident. For all its imperfections the NHS is a vast improvement on no help whatsoever

In the last few years I have had to phone 999 several times and have been deeply impressed by the quality of treatment I have received - which is often superior to that in private hospitals dominated by the profit motive.
And yet the global rich fly to the US more than to any other country for medical care unavailable or otherwise substandard in their own country. We have the most sought-after healthcare because we bring results.

As for your contacts, it’s amazing to me that people think they should receive goods and services and not have to pay for it!
 
“God Bless” and “spew” in the same breath!

You obviously are not one of those without health care; otherwise you wouldn’t be so callous about those who are living in poverty and whose** life expectancy** is decreased…
What is it, those living in poverty and whose life expectancy is decreased or millions who suffer and die?

If you have read my posts you would know that I do believe that health care is something that all should have. I was for a very long time without health care. But the way you discuss things by twisting so many things simply makes you look like a fanatic that will twist the facts and call people names if they do not agree with you. I do call it spewing when you were saying that millions suffer and die, then back it up with statistics that are nothing close to millions suffer and die. Why be so inflammatory?
 
Context is a key issue that you seem blind to for want of denial.
  1. The Church does not reject tax. Does the Church therefore support socialism? No. Because the Church knows that given capitalism the state needs to tax in order to provide community services that supports peoples needs. Its a necessity that the market place cannot provide. These are state sponsored services; not socialism.
This isn’t about taxation. I’ve written that previously. Taxes are just. This is about ruining a system that is the best in the world. And for what? Because of some people’s political and economic idealism. The marketplace can and does provide needed and wanted goods and services.

State-sponsored and socialism are synonyms in the context of the NHS.
  1. The right to private property is conditional on the needs of society as whole. If people are marginalised by the market place, then human need overrides and transcends the right to private property. You cannot call a starving person a thief. In certain circumstances, a redistribution of wealth or the redistribution of the means to production through tax or revolution is not immoral or contradictory to the churches stance towards socialism so long as necessity calls for it. It is actually theft to retain resources that are absolutely needed by the community and cannot be practically afforded in the market place.
More leftwing idealism. If you want to disregard the individual, that’s your prerogative. Many of your countrymen felt the same way when we defeated them some 200 years ago, and we see how things have turned out for you since–especially since 1945.

You are mistaken morally. If you’re hungry, you don’t commit a sin by stealing food–you ask for charity. There is never any reason or justification for sin, period. Christ and His Church have validated the rights of the individual and the right to ownership of private property.
  1. People need health care, or they will die or suffer indignity. The market place cannot provide good and sufficient health-care for those who are poor and cannot practically afford it. It is therefore the States responsibility to provide services for peoples needs that evidently cannot consistently or practically be provided otherwise through capitalism. Therefore the state needs to provide health care through tax in order to provide the best health care for those who cannot rely on the market. This is state sponsored health care system. Its not socialism.
The poor need to ask for help, not expect or demand it. They have no right to take what others have simply because they have not. Read the Bible, the writings of the early Church Fathers, and the Catechism.
You can close your eyes to reality all you want. Its not difficult to grasp. I am not saying anything that is against Church teaching.
OOOOOOOOOOOK… 🤷
 
Argumentum ad hominem.
Argumentum ad hominem.

You have evaded the points that have been made…
Either you’re really sensitive to ideas and statements you disagree with, or you think just about everything is some kind of logical fallacy. Stop accusing others and contribute to the discussion.

You remind of protesters with their signs and chants demanding “universal healthcare now!” When you go and try to engage in an intelligent discussion, they respond again with, “universal healthcare now!”
 
Read the Bible, the writings of the early Church Fathers, and the Catechism.

OOOOOOOOOOOK… 🤷
It is you that needs to read the Catechism. And given necessity it is not wrong to take food or property. And people have a right to dignity. Whether you like it or not.
 
I have not read Ed Fesser’s defence personally (bright when it comes to metaphysics; but obviously not too bright when it comes to discerning the value of a human being), but I am fully aware of the ideology that inconsistently tries to marry the Catholic faith with a morally indifferent state system, especially in regards to the needs of the poor; until of course it starts to effect them personally, and then suddenly that state is not supposed to be morally indifferent after all.

There is one fundamental fact which cannot be ignored, and I refuse to ignore it. The value of a human life is always worth more than the right to private property. The right to private property is not absolute, and such is the case for good reason. The extreme individualism that these people support in matters of economics is clearly not in line with Church teaching. You only have to read the Catechism to see that. It is true that the Church rejects socialism, but it certainly does not support the kind of indifferent state capitalism that is being espoused on this thread.
If you have not read Feser, how can you tell he is not “bright” when it comes to the value of human life? I think you are being too hasty and needlessly provocative.

I do not think anyone will disagree with you on the value of human life, but that does not necessarily entail intervention on the part of the State. That has to be argued for, and it is certainly not an obvious consequence of Catholic moral and political teaching since most of the Catholic thinkers on the internet that are far more intelligent than either of us propose different views.

I will be looking into this subject in the future, and perhaps we can spar intelligently.
 
Well, aren’t you a disciple?
Yes. What does that have to do with anything? I donate money to pay for poor people’s healthcare. That’s what He commanded.

I neither want nor need Washington to minister on my behalf.
 
It is you that needs to read the Catechism. And given necessity it is not wrong to take food or property. And people have a right to dignity. Whether you like it or not.
Uh, I do, friend. For example:

ARTICLE 7 THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT
You shall not steal.
2401 The seventh commandment forbids unjustly taking or keeping the goods of one’s neighbor and wronging him in any way with respect to his goods. It commands justice and charity in the care of earthly goods and the fruits of men’s labor. For the sake of the common good, it requires respect for the universal destination of goods and respect for the right to private property. Christian life strives to order this world’s goods to God and to fraternal charity.
I recommend that you give it a thorough reading…
 
Catholic social doctrine has always supported that equitable distribution of goods is a priority.
 
Catholic social teaching just says that we have a right to adequate medical care. Personally I believe that each state and county should be given the flexibility to develop innovative healthcare solutions and delivery systems based on their own unique needs and abilities.

USCCB goes a step further and says systems should provide “universal” coverage, respect for life (no abortion, euthanasia, contraception, eugenics, and other things that violate Catholic social teachings), and it should be cost effective (including minimal costs to the recipient)…

Now take my philosophy of states rights and expand on this. Each state (or even better a county or city) takes steps to develop their own heathcare initiatives. A state like Vermont has created a single payer healthcare system called Green Mountain Care.

New York City and Los Angeles have created wonderful Public health offices and hospitals to serve the needy and poor. Texas and Minnesota have undertaken free market reforms to make insurance more portable and less expensive through competition.

And let’s not leave out the fine Catholic health system we have here in the states. Catholic hospitals have some of the highest rates of charity care ever.

Obamacare’s not the way to do it. We need less Federal government. More Church, state, and local solutions to expand cheap and universal coverage!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top