Catholics VS Health Care in America: Morally Embarrassing

[someperson555]

First, I will pray that you accept Christ’s grace and avoid further ad hominem attacks. That aside, referring to people as “goons” just sounds childish and does not further your argument here.

Second, your argument about privatizing air is not only improbable, but impractical. No one can privatize a global resource that can’t be withheld from people. It’s air, not some commodity to be captured, packaged, and stored.

This isn’t about placing profit above human life. It’s about: 1) allowing people the opportunity to exercise charity–if you force people to pay for someone else’s healthcare, you take that opportunity away and cast aside Christ’s commandment; and 2) building, sustaining, and distrubting services that are by nature expensive and subject to drastic changes in the market–if private health systems don’t make a profit, than the public government systems will, only it’ll be run by federal bureaucrats with taxpayer money instead of doctors and managers actually providing the services on behalf of their clients.

Have you kept abreast of the goings-on in the Medicare and Medicaid systems in recent years? Do you really think that the federal government can manage a healthcare system better than the private sector?

Look around at the various social democracies around the world that are now essentially bankrupt because of highly inefficient and ineffective spending. I’m sorry, but I’m not willing to risk trashing our country for some idealistic social experiment.

God bless you!

uh oh, it looks like we got ourselves a libertarian here, you know what that means, straw men are to be expected! lets see, where to start tearing asunder this laughable argument.
first of all, that thing about privatizing air was hypothetical, but your response shows me that if it were possible, you would actually support it. and dont be so sure that such global commodities cant be privatized, did you know that a corporation in south america actually privatized the rain water? thats right, THE FREAKING RAIN WATER. that meant that if you collected the rain water, to drink, water your crops, etc, you would be fined and jailed. so its obvious that given the chance the capitalists would praobably privatize it, and the scenario is more possible than you think.
second, you treat the free market as a religion, the free market is highly flawed and is self contradictory. these goods and servicves are not expensive “by nature”, they are expensive because of the capitalists can charge what they damn well please for a doctors appointment or medicine. their primary goal is PROFIT, so its no wonder that they will try to maximize their profit by charging the most they are able to. and ofcourse if the government would run healthcare, “it would still need to profit” as you said, but the difference is that the goverment would not have profit as a goal. therefore its objective would be efficiency, not profit. think about it, premiums would be cheaper, since the government wouldnt need to waste money on advertising and lobbying, and fewer people would be denied because the goverment would not have an interest in withholding care from a person, since it would not affect their profit. this is in stark contrast to the private model, where people pay TONS of their hard earned cash every month, only to be DENIED for some frivolous reason when they need the care.

 

[tonyrey]

uh oh, it looks like we got ourselves a libertarian here, you know what that means, straw men are to be expected! lets see, where to start tearing asunder this laughable argument.
first of all, that thing about privatizing air was hypothetical, but your response shows me that if it were possible, you would actually support it. and dont be so sure that such global commodities cant be privatized, did you know that a corporation in south america actually privatized the rain water? thats right, THE FREAKING RAIN WATER. that meant that if you collected the rain water, to drink, water your crops, etc, you would be fined and jailed. so its obvious that given the chance the capitalists would probably privatize it, and the scenario is more possible than you think.
second, you treat the free market as a religion, the free market is highly flawed and is self contradictory. these goods and services are not expensive “by nature”, they are expensive because of the capitalists can charge what they damn well please for a doctors appointment or medicine. their primary goal is PROFIT, so its no wonder that they will try to maximize their profit by charging the most they are able to. and ofcourse if the government would run healthcare, “it would still need to profit” as you said, but the difference is that the government would not have profit as a goal. therefore its objective would be efficiency, not profit. think about it, premiums would be cheaper, since the government wouldnt need to waste money on advertising and lobbying, and fewer people would be denied because the government would not have an interest in withholding care from a person, since it would not affect their profit. this is in stark contrast to the private model, where people pay TONS of their hard earned cash every month, only to be DENIED for some frivolous reason when they need the care.

A superb, irrefutable post!

 

[MindOverMatter2]

uh oh, it looks like we got ourselves a libertarian here, you know what that means, straw men are to be expected! lets see, where to start tearing asunder this laughable argument.
first of all, that thing about privatizing air was hypothetical, but your response shows me that if it were possible, you would actually support it. and dont be so sure that such global commodities cant be privatized, did you know that a corporation in south america actually privatized the rain water? thats right, THE FREAKING RAIN WATER. that meant that if you collected the rain water, to drink, water your crops, etc, you would be fined and jailed. so its obvious that given the chance the capitalists would praobably privatize it, and the scenario is more possible than you think.
second, you treat the free market as a religion, the free market is highly flawed and is self contradictory. these goods and servicves are not expensive “by nature”, they are expensive because of the capitalists can charge what they damn well please for a doctors appointment or medicine. their primary goal is PROFIT, so its no wonder that they will try to maximize their profit by charging the most they are able to. and ofcourse if the government would run healthcare, “it would still need to profit” as you said, but the difference is that the goverment would not have profit as a goal. therefore its objective would be efficiency, not profit. think about it, premiums would be cheaper, since the government wouldnt need to waste money on advertising and lobbying, and fewer people would be denied because the goverment would not have an interest in withholding care from a person, since it would not affect their profit. this is in stark contrast to the private model, where people pay TONS of their hard earned cash every month, only to be DENIED for some frivolous reason when they need the care.

 

[tonyrey]

Well, actually an entitlement is something that somebody is entitled to (you’ll notice the similarity in the words). An entitlement is something that someone is entitled to because he meets the legal criteria. Social Security is an entitlement because we pay for it in our payroll taxes. The same thing for Medicare. When something is called an entitlement it is called that because it is that as a matter of positive law. So when you say that something is not an entitlement because you don’t think it should be an entitlement, even though it is an entitlement under the law, that makes as much sense as saying red lights don’t mean “stop” because you think white lights should serve that purpose.

As far as thinking in circles goes, I was responding to the post that denied that Jesus taught that others are entitled to our charity. Here I was using “entitled” in a broader sense. It was eventually admitted that Jesus taught that. So while the conversation came full circle, I was not thinking in circles.

Now while it is true that there is no mention of government run health care in the Bible, I don’t believe Catholicism is based solely on the Bible. There’s no mention of abortion in the Bible either, nor can you find in the Scriptures an unambiguous statement that life begins at conception. The fact is, your beliefs about universal healthcare are directly contrary to that of the Pope, as is evidenced by this link: catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004736.htm

Now, while you are entitled to your opinion, I will go out on a limb and suggest that you are not more Catholic than the Pope.

His exact words:

“Pope Benedict XVI and other church leaders said it was the moral responsibility of nations to guarantee access to health care for all of their citizens, regardless of social and economic status or their ability to pay.”

 

[MindOverMatter2]

His exact words:

“Pope Benedict XVI and other church leaders said it was the moral responsibility of nations to guarantee access to health care for all of their citizens, regardless of social and economic status or their ability to pay.”

. Its Guaranteed our opponents are going to read this statement with their eyes closed!!

 

[tonyrey]

"Pope Benedict XVI and other church leaders said it was the moral responsibility of nations to guarantee access to health care for all of their citizens, regardless of social and economic status or their ability to pay

It will be fascinating to discover how they attempt to wriggle out of the hole they have dug for themselves!

 

[Al_Moritz]

uh oh, it looks like we got ourselves a libertarian here, you know what that means, straw men are to be expected! lets see, where to start tearing asunder this laughable argument.
first of all, that thing about privatizing air was hypothetical, but your response shows me that if it were possible, you would actually support it. and dont be so sure that such global commodities cant be privatized, did you know that a corporation in south america actually privatized the rain water? thats right, THE FREAKING RAIN WATER. that meant that if you collected the rain water, to drink, water your crops, etc, you would be fined and jailed. so its obvious that given the chance the capitalists would praobably privatize it, and the scenario is more possible than you think.
second, you treat the free market as a religion, the free market is highly flawed and is self contradictory. these goods and servicves are not expensive “by nature”, they are expensive because of the capitalists can charge what they damn well please for a doctors appointment or medicine. their primary goal is PROFIT, so its no wonder that they will try to maximize their profit by charging the most they are able to. and ofcourse if the government would run healthcare, “it would still need to profit” as you said, but the difference is that the goverment would not have profit as a goal. therefore its objective would be efficiency, not profit. think about it, premiums would be cheaper, since the government wouldnt need to waste money on advertising and lobbying, and fewer people would be denied because the goverment would not have an interest in withholding care from a person, since it would not affect their profit. this is in stark contrast to the private model, where people pay TONS of their hard earned cash every month, only to be DENIED for some frivolous reason when they need the care.

Irrefutable indeed!

 

[Al_Moritz]

It will be fascinating to discover how they attempt to wriggle out of the hole they have dug for themselves!

It will also be fascinating to discover how they still can justify to call themselves “Catholics”.

 

[Geist]

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.

The American healthcare system is great if you’re healthy. If you’re not healthy, well, better be rich. Medical debt is the #1 cause of bankruptcy in this country. Incidentally, there are 0 bankruptcies due to medical debt in the EU.

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!

“And lo, Jesus asked the leper, hast thou met thine deductible? hast thine paid the HMO premiums? Is thee aware payment must be rendered at time of service? And at this, the leper went away for the Lord was out of network.”

How the Gospels would look if the Republican party wrote it.

 

[dmelosi]

The American healthcare system is great if you’re healthy. If you’re not healthy, well, better be rich. Medical debt is the #1 cause of bankruptcy in this country. Incidentally, there are 0 bankruptcies due to medical debt in the EU.

“And lo, Jesus asked the leper, hast thou met thine deductible? hast thine paid the HMO premiums? Is thee aware payment must be rendered at time of service? And at this, the leper went away for the Lord was out of network.”

How the Gospels would look if the Republican party wrote it.

Well 1 thing for certain the gospels would have something in there about not killing a human being. Oh wait they do.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

It’s time for a Catholic political party.

 

[Nate13]

“And lo, Jesus asked the leper, hast thou met thine deductible? hast thine paid the HMO premiums? Is thee aware payment must be rendered at time of service? And at this, the leper went away for the Lord was out of network.”

How the Gospels would look if the Republican party wrote it.

6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you [f]keep away from every brother who [g]leads an [h]unruly life and not according to the tradition which *you received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to [j]follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, 8 nor did we eat [k]anyone’s bread [l]without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you; 9 not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would [m]follow our example. 10 For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. 11 For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. 12 Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread. 13 But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary of doing good. *

My bad I just assumed that if you didn’t eat, you didn’t get healthcare as well. Look, I’m completely willingly to show charity and help those in need, but I get ticked off when people start claiming that people deserve healthcare no matter what. Having me or anyone else pay for your healthcare is not a right. If you deserved it, it would no longer be charity now would it? Does anyone consider a paycheck a person deserves for doing a job to be “charity”?

 

[anthony022071]

We are not responsible for the corruption that inevitably comes with a circular Government. You are speaking about something that’s unavoidable and is going to happen anyway. This is not a justification for letting somebody die for lack of a proper health system. The church cannot provide for everything, and it is ridiculous and naive to expect them to. You cannot morally put a price on somebodies life. And if that means taxing, you are dame right I am going to support it, and there is nothing wrong with the government taxing people to help others in an indifferent capitalist market.

We may not be directly responsible for government corruption,but we should not foster the expansion of government power that intrudes into the lives of the people. If there is some social need that should be taken care of,it is proper for the Church and community organizations and families and individuals to take care of it,not a government bureaucracy. Whether or not we let people die for lack of care is a separate thing from government health care. It is not an either-or choice. The Church can indeed provide for everything if Catholics are motivated by faith and mercy to help the needy. The Church is not just a bureaucratic institution,it is also the laity,and the laypersons who have money to spare or who are doctors and nurses can provide for their needy neighbors.

The government is as indifferent to the welfare of people as the capitalist market. Government health care is not about social justice,it is about improper government power over people. If you are wholly dependent upon the government for your personal needs,then the government can mistreat you,and you will not be able to escape from it or hold it accountable,as you could with a private business that you are paying.

What sense does it make to want the government to take money from people to provide services that they could pay for themselves?

 

[anthony022071]

His exact words:

“Pope Benedict XVI and other church leaders said it was the moral responsibility of nations to guarantee access to health care for all of their citizens, regardless of social and economic status or their ability to pay.”

We already have access to health care for all citizens. Even illegal aliens can get health care.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

My bad I just assumed that if you didn’t eat, you didn’t get healthcare as well. Look, I’m completely willingly to show charity and help those in need, but I get ticked off when people start claiming that people deserve healthcare no matter what. Having me or anyone else pay for your healthcare is not a right. If you deserved it, it would no longer be charity now would it? Does anyone consider a paycheck a person deserves for doing a job to be “charity”?

But everyone has a right to receive healthcare. It is a fundamental human right that is denied throughout the world, especially in third world countries. No, we don’t deserve healthcare. We don’t deserve anything. It is all from the grace of God that we receive what we have. But why should we deny people a fundamental human right just because some people don’t want to help others and pay for their healthcare when they can’t pay for it themselves? That’s what I don’t understand, but ya know, .

 

[anthony022071]

Yes, the moral callousness of the Neo-Con Catholics here is shocking. Well, are they even Catholics?

What does opposing a government monopoly on health care and hospitals have to do with moral callousness? And what does handing over the poor and needy over to an unaccountable government bureaucracy that does not respect the right to life have to do with mercy?

 

[vsedriver]

Sounds like sweeping generalizations to me, concocted to avoid the reality that society and the nature of the system had something do with some of them being on the streets in the first place.

well they are not sweeping generalizations. It is information produced by legitimate studies. Did you think that no one was actively studying the problem?

talk to the people who run the shelters… they will happily tell you the main reason these people are on the streets is because they have some form of mental illness or addiction. Is help available to these people? Yes it is. BUT YOU CAN’T FORCE THEM TO GET HELP! It is against the law.

Society and the nature of the system does not make people mentally ill or get them addicted. That is a sweeping generalization. Now if you can present evidence that society and the system does indeed make people mentally ill or gets them addicted I’d love to see that data.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Society and the nature of the system does not make people mentally ill or get them addicted.

I am sure you would like me to believe this.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

And what does handing over the poor and needy over to an unaccountable government bureaucracy that does not respect the right to life have to do with mercy?

They are already in a position where the market does not respect their right to health and dignity. By taxing the rich and the well-off, they will get what they need.

 

[vsedriver]

I am sure you would like me to believe this.

you can believe whatever you want, but without evidence and documentation it is as real as a fairy tale.

You can’t solve problems based on fairy tales.