M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Why would any Catholic be Against Free Health Care?
Am i the only Catholic that finds this idea Morally Embarrassing?
Am i the only Catholic that finds this idea Morally Embarrassing?
- Status
G
Gene_Church
Guest
Probably not the only one. But there is no such thing as free.
O
Orogeny
Guest
B
Brendan
Guest
My thoughts exactly.
MoM2, does that mean that the workers who build the hospitals do it for free, how about the cement and medical equiment suppliers? The Doctors, the Nurses and other staff?
According to Catholic moral teaching, they are all entitled to a fair and just wage for their work
Given that, how exactly does the ‘free’ health care come about?
D
danserr
Guest
What makes you say free? Health care is not free and can not be free, it is incredibly expensive.
You probably mean “how can catholics be against forcing part of the population to accept inferior health care as well as paying entirely for the health care of another part of the population?” But put this way, I think the answer is easier and more obvious. Second, if you mean "how can a catholic not support Obama’s bill, then a legitimate reply would be that in his version of universal health care, catholic money will probably be forced to fund morally objectionable practices, including birth control and abortion. There are other considerations as well.
F
friendster324
Guest
In the US, some hold the view that the government should not be in the health care business, many claiming it is against subsidiarity. Many agree that “the government that governs best governs least.” That is a position that is compatible with church teaching.
I however prefer to get the 12K people who die every year from lack of health care the care they need, regardless of how much it might cost me in taxes. Because health care isn’t like other services that are simply a convenience, it’s literally a matter of life and death.
But that’s just me…
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Like public health care in London (Britain). NHS
I can see a lot of straw-man brewing; so i will just mention your least favorite word in the “free” world; the workers will be payed for using taxes. Like you said nothings for free, but thats besides the point when a human life is in your hands
And please don’t talk to me about moral teaching if you think for a second that it would be morally okay to let somebody die if they don’t have enough money to pay for treatment. True Christianity would never support that position.
F
friendster324
Guest
Abortion will not be covered in Obamacare! This is a huge pet peeve of mine because people throw it around to make conservatives hate the law but the law is silent on the matter (neither prohibits or supports govt funded abortions) and with the executive order that Obama issued, it will NOT be allowed to use public money for abortions.
Birth control is a different matter… there is a possibility that Catholic organizations will be forced to cover it. But that is a big maybe. We’ll have to see when the rules are actually set forth and whether the exemption offered by the white house is widened.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
I absolutely agree. You are Morally Correct. Life and death is not a business in the normal sense of the word; and shouldn’t be.
I have to say it is a sign of greed, when people protest against paying tax for the lives of the 12k People. In a very real sense it is to participate in Murder.
C
cargau
Guest
The fact is, no one is ever turned away for health care. They may not get the same level of care, but they are not ignored. The 30 million americans without health care is a lot of hype. The new health care law is not so much about morality as it is allowing the government to further control and manipulate our lives. If they were serious about health care reform, they would have made it more affordable by focusing more on access to options (out of state) and tort reform.
If government is so concerned about morality, how 'bout overturning Roe V. Wade before launching a flawed program that will further strangle economic growth and prosperity.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Wow, you really know how to defend your position, don’t you.
I think you need to take a step back from that kind of rhetoric. You also need to learn some facts about the lack of availability of healthcare. You do know that there is healthcare available to everyone, right? And if one cannot afford to pay for it, they still receive care. You DO know that, right?
Peace
Tim
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Pointing out flaws in the government regarding other issues is really a red herring and misdirection. The moral concern of abortion is dependent upon a theological definition of life that is not “self-evident”. In so far as reason is concerned, those who have argued against abortion have not succeeded in proving that abortion is wrong, since its being wrong is dependent upon our theological or religious understanding of reality. The ontological context in which it is wrong is either not easily discern or is impossible to validate on legal terms without a self-evident revelation from God. Thus there are inherent limitations that come with fact that the the legal system is not defined according to Divine Revelation or dictated to by Catholic authority.
As for national health care, it is wrong for catholics in any society to place profit over human health. If people are denied reasonable and dignified health care on the basis of not being able afford it, then this is a terrible evil promoted by the very same people who are against abortion and supposedly value the life of the unborn (the health of the unborn, that may find themselves in that percentage of the population who cannot afford to live the rest of their natural born lives with dignity)
There is clearly a moral contradiction.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
So long as they are receiving the right health care. You seem to be under the impression that there is no link between those people dying and the lack of proper health-care.Wow, you really know how to defend your position, don’t you.
And if one cannot afford to pay for it, they still receive care. You DO know that, right?
Peace
Tim
D
DihydrogenOxide
Guest
It’s not free.
Not only that, but you’re helping in paying for the “free” murder of someone else’s child.
Not only that, but you’re helping in paying for the “free” murder of someone else’s child.
J
JackQ
Guest
I agree with you, but there’s even more to this issue than is generally discussed.
You’ll remember that just before Jesus fed the 5,000 in the wilderness with 5 loaves and 2 fish, the disciples told Jesus that he should send the crowd away to get something to eat in the surrounding towns. Jesus responded by saying that it wasn’t necessary for the crowd to leave. “You feed them,” he said.
The disciples tried to explain the practicalities of the problem to Jesus. ‘How are we going to feed so many with so little,’ they asked. Jesus, you see, had a problem understanding fiscal constraints.
But Jesus wasn’t in the mood to take his disciples’ common sense advice, and actually had everyone in the crowd sit down as he divided the food among them. Lo and behold, every person in the crowd had his hunger satisfied, and they were able to collect 12 baskets of leftover fragments. It is to be noted, here, that Jesus didn’t charge any money for this.
Now as we debate the health care issue in the U.S., who can doubt that if we brought the problem to Jesus his response would be, “You heal them.” Of course, this would be precisely a continuation of Jesus’ own mission which consisted primarily of preaching the gospel and healing the sick.
I realize that we already have Catholic hospitals. We charge for those services, which seems appropriate given our current cultural paradigms. But Jesus said, “You received without pay, give without pay.” Now I realize that Jesus didn’t have an MBA, but I will humbly submit that we shouldn’t think that we can improve on the business model he laid out for us.
So while I agree with you that everyone has a right to the healthcare he needs, regardless of his income level, I don’t think that Catholics can simply advocate for universal health coverage and leave it at that. Living in democracies has gotten us too used to petitioning the government as a substitute for direct action.
I would support universal single-payer health coverage in the United States. But neither I, nor any other Catholic, is off the hook simply because we engage in such advocacy. Indeed, I can imagine a sincere Catholic disagreeing with me on this political point. Yet, regardless of what the government does, the fact remains that Jesus has already laid out for us what our obligation is, and that is to provide every sick person with the care he needs, regardless of income, for free.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Speaking of straw men and ad hominem attacks.
So everyone who disagrees with you is only doing so because they value profit over human health?
How can you expect any sort of intelligent debate when you so demonize the opposition?
I was with you and willing to listen until you started to spew this kind of crud.
There are many of us that are on the fence of the issue and comments such as yours, that if we do not agree with you then we must hate people and be greedy, are just wrong and a sure way to push us off the fence away from the likes of you.
B
Brendan
Guest
Are you claiming that NHS doctors work for free? Or that it’s hospitals came into existance with no cost.
Unless that is all true, NHS is NOT free health care, but rather paid for via the expenses of others.
No, but that does not mean that it is the responsibility of the government.
Rather, according to Catholic teaching, we are to rely on the principle of Subsidarity. If a person can pay, even if it means taking out loans etc… They should do so.
Secondly, if the person cannot pay, they should first rely on friends and family. As part of the principle of Subsidarity, we should also willing contribute to such when friends ask ( instead of pushing off to another source).
Thirdly, comes the Church. A Catholic should be giving more money to the Church than they do to the goverment. And along with that Church should step up once again to perform this role.
As Christ told Peter “tend my sheep”, the tending of the sheep, the care of the sheep, as a union of body and soul, places the burden on the Church.
Therefore, we should not give to Caesar what is truely God’s.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
This is a red-herring, and is misdirection as i explained in my previous post.
The fact that the Government participates in what we understand as Catholics to be morally wrong, is not relevant to the fact that everybody needs sufficient health-care regardless of whether they can afford it or not. I’m not against taxing to that moral end, simply because we cannot wait for wicked people to be charitable, and since they are participating in the function of a state, they should economically participate to the function of a state so that a particular Government can help those in need and pay for services such as police, health care, and other necessities that cannot be left to the whim of the market place. The private Market place alone is not sufficient to provide for every-bodies needs, and human need in general. Tax is necessary if everybody is to receive what they need. Some people in America clearly suffer from the delusion that a governments only function is to help them economically exploit human needs and wants.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
If you are on the fence, it is either…
- Because you are deceived.
- Or because you are greedy (selfish and therefore unwilling to make sacrifices),
- Or because you are not yet able to rationally discern the rights or wrongs of the issue.
Which one do you represent?
G
George_Stegmeir
Guest
The recent political attempt at providing health care to the whole Nation in the US was handled the wrong way. The whole problem of health care in the US is due to the fact that Medical Doctors have a monoply and charge the public accordingly. Their association, the AMA, sets a standard that dictates not only who can become a doctor, but restricts the number of doctors produced by universities each year. In many cities, an intern, fresh out of college with no experience is paid around $75,000 a year. The justification being that they have to pay off their educational loans.Unfortunately the public is constantly bombarded with pro-doctor propaganda so that the average American thinks all MD’s are Dr. Kildare! Selfless care givers not concerned with money. HAH!
The problem starts with the Medical Schools. Currently, one darn near has to be a phi beta kappa and have a relative who is a doctor to gain admission to many medical schools. Then, the cost of the school comes close to one million dollars at schools like NYU…There is no legitimate reason that any degree costs that much. Of course, the auxilliary businesses follow suit and charge exhorbitant prices…and the insurance companies and banks don’t complain because they make money.
Every time the high price of drugs comes up, one is bombarded with propaganda as to how high the cost of research is for the drug companies. The fact is, that most research for new drugs is done in universities and paid for with Federal grants (tax money). The only cost to the drug companies is the cost for testing the drug. The crazy thing is that certain drug companies are allowed to patent the drugs that they only paid for the testing - even though the research for the drug was not done by that company.
Until our government finds a way to break the monoply of the AMA and have legislation that mandates open admission to medical schools and controls the cost of a medical education, we will continue to have a problem.
One last thing… the restriction against foreign trained doctors in the US. No one can deny that medical training in Western Europe is not the equal of that in the US. However, the AMA uses the excuse of the differences in language to make all foreign trained doctors repeat a good portion of medical school in this country and then repeat their internship over here before they can be licensed to practice medicine.
None of us will ever see any significant reforms to the system because there is too much money involved and the public is forced to pay exhorbetant prices for a necessity.
The problem starts with the Medical Schools. Currently, one darn near has to be a phi beta kappa and have a relative who is a doctor to gain admission to many medical schools. Then, the cost of the school comes close to one million dollars at schools like NYU…There is no legitimate reason that any degree costs that much. Of course, the auxilliary businesses follow suit and charge exhorbitant prices…and the insurance companies and banks don’t complain because they make money.
Every time the high price of drugs comes up, one is bombarded with propaganda as to how high the cost of research is for the drug companies. The fact is, that most research for new drugs is done in universities and paid for with Federal grants (tax money). The only cost to the drug companies is the cost for testing the drug. The crazy thing is that certain drug companies are allowed to patent the drugs that they only paid for the testing - even though the research for the drug was not done by that company.
Until our government finds a way to break the monoply of the AMA and have legislation that mandates open admission to medical schools and controls the cost of a medical education, we will continue to have a problem.
One last thing… the restriction against foreign trained doctors in the US. No one can deny that medical training in Western Europe is not the equal of that in the US. However, the AMA uses the excuse of the differences in language to make all foreign trained doctors repeat a good portion of medical school in this country and then repeat their internship over here before they can be licensed to practice medicine.
None of us will ever see any significant reforms to the system because there is too much money involved and the public is forced to pay exhorbetant prices for a necessity.
- Status