Catholics VS Health Care in America: Morally Embarrassing

[jannes]

My friend 38 years old just died from an infected gall bladder, she was getting medicated for it for years but because she was part of the working poor she didn’t qualify for Medicaid or any other programs ,her husband could only work sporadically and they had three children She couldn.t afford the surgery .So three kids are left woth no mother A father is left bereft Don’t tell me the outfall from this will not impact the taxpayers either by welfare payments or future resentment and disgust of this family who live in a country supposed to be the best in the world but thats only if you are fortunate enough to have good health and money in the bank.Do you ever wonder that a lot of petty crime is commited by people who have been left destitute by paying large medical bills.So what would you do if your kids were hungry and every penny you earned had to go to pay for your families medical needs.Well I am a very moral person but if my kids were hungry I would steal. So many good people end up in jail or in the courts precisely beacause they were desperate not because the stole for drugs or booze but to eat ,whose taxes pay for the jails and child welfare officers .When People are treated as valuable human beings they tend to behave the same way.As far as the taxes go you either pay for the healthcare for all or you pay the consequences.

 

[pismopal]

My religion has nothing to do with the concept of “free” health care. If people want to vote themselves a form of socialist medicine they will need to figure out who and what will pay for it. The USA is broke…we have overspent and are on the edge of economic disaster. Europe demanded a whole list of “free” benefits,including health care. Is it too much trouble to examine what happened, and is happening to their economy? Americans have fallen into this entitlement trap set for them by politicians and union types and seemingly will not get out of it.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

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.

Strawman. As i predicted. I am not going to waste any time debating you.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

My friend 38 years old just died from an infected gall bladder, she was getting medicated for it for years but because she was part of the working poor she didn’t qualify for Medicaid or any other programs ,her husband could only work sporadically and they had three children She couldn.t afford the surgery .So three kids are left woth no mother A father is left bereft Don’t tell me the outfall from this will not impact the taxpayers either by welfare payments or future resentment and disgust of this family who live in a country supposed to be the best in the world but thats only if you are fortunate enough to have good health and money in the bank.Do you ever wonder that a lot of petty crime is commited by people who have been left destitute by paying large medical bills.So what would you do if your kids were hungry and every penny you earned had to go to pay for your families medical needs.Well I am a very moral person but if my kids were hungry I would steal. So many good people end up in jail or in the courts precisely beacause they were desperate not because the stole for drugs or booze but to eat ,whose taxes pay for the jails and child welfare officers .When People are treated as valuable human beings they tend to behave the same way.As far as the taxes go you either pay for the healthcare for all or you pay the consequences.

Thank-you for your enlightening contribution to this thread. Lets hope that those who read this are not so blinded by greed as to not see whats at stake. Our humanity

If you are staving and homeless on the streets then it is not wrong to steal; in fact it is not stealing. If i was homeless and starving i would most certainly steal and break into and occupy empty houses. It would only be wrong if i caused immediate physical harm to somebody.

Most cases of homelessness is only evidence of the fact that society has failed them, because of extreme individualism regarding human welfare and economic indifference.

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by friendster324 View Post

What I am about to write will sound harsh and to some ears even unchristian…But facts are facts.

Every person now living will die including the 12k people you speak of. Nothing will prevent this - not even the finest health care in the world. Only the timing will be effected, and perhaps the quality of the remaining corporeal life.
What is more important is the status of ones soul than the status of ones body.

That said, I think that good health care is a wonderful thing. I also think that public support for health care for the poor is also a wonderful thing. If we can afford it.

The US is headed for bankruptcy. There is no way around it. And frankly I don’t think there is any way that it will be avoided. But facts are facts.
Now WHEN (not if) the country goes bankrupt, there will be much MORE suffering than there is now. Universal health care will not prevent it, it will hasten it.

When the country can come together and determine how to balance the budget and begin paying down the principle of the national debt, then there might be room to talk about what and how health care might be addressed in the most efficient manner. As for now…It is simply out of the question.

Peace
James

 

[Brendan]

. 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. .

That is actually not true.

Collegiate research in almost exclusively focused on the general biology. Determining that a particualar enzyme is resonsible for a paricular biologlical effect (for example). And what the chemical composition of that enzyme would be.

In then falls to the drug companies to investigate for a chemical that would chemically interact with that enzyme in such a way that would alter the biological effect in a desired way.

The university research does not indentify the interacting chemical ( the drug), it only identifies what the problem would be.

A great example would be the antivirial agent Tamiflu (seltamivir). University research determined the composition of the H1N1 virus and how it replicated, but no university, or federal research determined the chemical composition of Tamiflu. It fell to Roche to develop the actual drug itself.

And even then, it had to develop a delivery mechanism. The actual drug would not be absorbed correctly in the digestive tract, so Roche developed the drug so that the active drug is really the by products of metabolisation. In other words, the drug that is given to a patient has no effect until it is metabolized by the liver. The end product of metabolization has the desired chemical properties. It attaches to and inhibits the virus from replicating.

That was all research that was funded by Roche, not universities. If you think that some university, using Federal dollars, produced a paper that stated, “If someone makes a drug with XYZ chemical composition, it will be metabolized by the liver and the byproducts will inhibit replication of the H1N1 virus”. And all Roche had to do was make the referenced chemical and test it, you are sadly mistaken.

 

[dmelosi]

If you are on the fence, it is either…

1. Because you are deceived.
2. Or because you are greedy (selfish and therefore unwilling to make sacrifices),
3. Or because you are not yet able to rationally discern the rights or wrongs of the issue.

If you represent the first or the last, then fair enough; this thread isn’t against you.

Which one do you represent?

I am none of the above.

You are not trying to reason that our health care system is broke, but jumping down everyone’s throat who disagrees with you. Your name calling does not help to make your case. I believe that the health care system needs to be changed, but cannot believe that abortion is not intended to be covered by the most pro abortion president ever.

You have the Catholic tag by your name, do you not realize that abortion is killing a human being? You are defending that killing these most innocent is ok if a person thinks it is ok?

I could be wrong but it sure appears that you are married to a political party.

 

[danserr]

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.

There is no such contradiction at all. One opposes abortion because it is intrinsically evil, because one person has no right to kill an unborn baby.

The same person may oppose universal style health care because that same health care would fund abortion. And to the poster who claimed this is untrue, I simply disagree. If Obama’s bill was not likely to be interpreted to fund abortion, then why would democrats have refused to include the stupak amendent?

Second, a person may rationally and morally oppose universal style health care because they believe that the inevitable rationing that would result (as it does in Canada and other universal style systems) is immoral. Such people believe markets rather than (potentially corrupt) persons should decide how to allocate scarce resources.

Universal style health care raises a host of complicated questions?

• Since there is a limited amount of health care to go around, how much health care should everyone get?
• Who will decide how much health care everyone should get?
• Should all people who can’t afford the best health care get it paid for by taxpayers?
• How much health care should those people get?
  (“as much as they need” is an emotionally satisfying answer, but not a realistic one).
• Is it fair that some people who have taken poor care of their bodies (smokers, the obese etc.) should have their care paid for by people who have taken better care of their bodies?
• To remedy this can the government require people to eat broccoli? To join a gym?

Possibly, you might consider John Chysostom:

On Living Simply: The Golden Voice of John Chrysostom (Sermon 63):
Should we look to kings and princes to put right the inequalities between rich and poor? Should we require soldiers to come and seize the rich person’s gold and distribute it among his destitute neighbors? Should we beg the emperor to impose a tax on the rich so great that it reduces them to the level of the poor and then to share the proceeds of that tax among everyone? Equality imposed by force would achieve nothing, and do much harm. Those who combined both cruel hearts and sharp minds would soon find ways of making themselves rich again. Worse still, the rich whose gold was taken away would feel bitter and resentful; while the poor who received the gold form the hands of soldiers would feel no gratitude, because no generosity would have prompted the gift. Far from bringing moral benefit to society, it would actually do moral harm. Material justice cannot be accomplished by compulsion, a change of heart will not follow. The only way to achieve true justice is to change people’s hearts first - and then they will joyfully share their wealth.

Finally, the moral concern over abortion is not based on a theological definition of life, but a scientific one. If leftists want to deny this, they do it on ideological grounds, not scientific ones. Opposition to abortion is based on the ethical principle that human persons have value, and the scientific principle that life begins at conception.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

If you are on the fence, it is either…

1. Because you are deceived.
2. Or because you are greedy (selfish and therefore unwilling to make sacrifices),
3. Or because you are not yet able to rationally discern the rights or wrongs of the issue.

If you represent the first or the last, then fair enough; this thread isn’t against you.

Which one do you represent?

The issue is more complex that you make it out to be.

Why must you hate the opposition?

Brendan gave you the best answer as of yet. I am waiting to see how you respond to that.

 

[danserr]

If you are on the fence, it is either…

1. Because you are deceived.
2. Or because you are greedy (selfish and therefore unwilling to make sacrifices),
3. Or because you are not yet able to rationally discern the rights or wrongs of the issue.

If you represent the first or the last, then fair enough; this thread isn’t against you.

Which one do you represent?

That is simply an ad hominem. You are suggesting that a person opposed to universal style health care is either stupid or selfish. Mom, this isn’t like you normally, what gives?

And people who oppose big govt. style activity tend to be more generous, not less in their charitable giving. See Arthur C Brookes, Who Really Cares.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Strawman. As i predicted. I am not going to waste any time debating you.

Maybe if you stopped providing your own strawmen and debated the issue you wouldn’t have strawmen thrown back at you.

I will not debate you while you constantly demonize the opposition.

Actually I think the ignore feature is called for here.

 

[Brendan]

MoM2,

I make regular trips to Tanzania, one of the poorest countries in the world. Since I work in the IT industry, I set up computer labs in Catholic schools in a diocese in western Tanzania.

The local per (adult) capita annual income there is about $500. Needless to say, what the schools take in for tuition would not be enought to buy a keyboard, let alone a full PC, so I purchase those as well.

How much money do you contribute there for health care? Do they deserve proper health care any less than you do?

Do you consider it to be simply a function of the government of Tanzaina to do that. In which case, they cannot do much at all. You don’t get much in taxation from people who make $500 per year. And selling rice, coffee and bananas only gets so much on the world market.

So, since you and I and just about everyone on this board are among the world’s rich and probably make several orders of magnatude what the local people do. Should we be taxed to offer them health care?

How much should we donate, and are you doing so?

If you are not donating enough to fund health care, are you contribution to murder?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

There is no such contradiction at all. One opposes abortion because it is intrinsically evil, because one person has no right to kill an unborn baby.

The same person may oppose universal style health care because that same health care would fund abortion.

I am not actually saying that you should support abortion for the sake of health-care (this is a strawman of what i intended to argue in the first place).

Denial of health care and abortion are both intrinsic evils. However it can be argued that one is clearly a worser infliction of human dignity than the other.

I do not think a Catholic is wrong if he or she refuse to support health care on the basis that they refuse to support abortion; since it could be argued to be a greater evil than denial of proper health care.

However; if it were to arise that abortion was universally implemented regardless of the issue of health-care; then it would no-longer be morally relevant to the question of health-care.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

MoM2,

I make regular trips to Tanzania, one of the poorest countries in the world. Since I work in the IT industry, I set up computer labs in Catholic schools in a diocese in western Tanzania.

The local per (adult) capita annual income there is about $500. Needless to say, what the schools take in for tuition would not be enought to buy a keyboard, let alone a full PC, so I purchase those as well.

How much money do you contribute there for health care? Do they deserve proper health care any less than you do?

Do you consider it to be simply a function of the government of Tanzaina to do that. In which case, they cannot do much at all. You don’t get much in taxation from people who make $500 per year. And selling rice, coffee and bananas only gets so much on the world market.

So, since you and I and just about everyone on this board are among the world’s rich and probably make several orders of magnatude what the local people do. Should we be taxed to offer them health care?

How much should we donate, and are you doing so?

If you are not donating enough to fund health care, are you contribution to murder?

If the rich and wealthy can contribute to the wellbeing of others, but do not; lets just say that I will not be expecting to see them in heaven.

Nations should do what ever they can to help other nations that are either developing at a slow rate or are simply in poverty. I believe that is a duty of the state; and they will require tax in order to do that.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Maybe if you stopped providing your own strawmen and debated the issue you wouldn’t have strawmen thrown back at you.

I will not debate you while you constantly demonize the opposition.

Actually I think the ignore feature is called for here.

Goodbye.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Goodbye.

That’s what I thought.

Your not here to debate, you are here to attack and hate.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

That is simply an ad hominem. You are suggesting that a person opposed to universal style health care is either stupid or selfish. Mom, this isn’t like you normally, what gives?

This is a strawman. To be deceived and to fail in reasoning is not necessarily to be stupid. Very intelligent people evidently support abortion.

Also, if you thought i was somebody who cares about the moaning of the rich when they are forced to give tax, you thought wrong.

And people who oppose big govt. style activity tend to be more generous, not less in their charitable giving. See Arthur C Brookes, Who Really Cares.

Its irrelevant. If the needs of society could be supported by the charitable crumbs left by the whim of the rich and those who can afford; then we would not be having this discussion. Charity alone is not enough, and it never will be. It is the individualistic principles and moral difference of the economy that needs to be challenged and restrained by law; and short of a revolution, only the state can do that.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

That’s what I thought.

Your not here to debate, you are here to attack and hate.

I am not here to listen to you thats for sure, and this is the last that you personally will here from me; so you will be better of going somewhere else.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I am not here to listen to you thats for sure, and this is the last that you personally will here from me; so you will be better of going somewhere else.

Wow! How Christian of you.

Ask some simple questions and request that the strawmen and ad hominems be left out and suddenly your the problem.

Guess the challenge was to great.

 

[Cristiano]

I am not here to listen to you thats for sure, and this is the last that you personally will here from me; so you will be better of going somewhere else.

What is your real problem? I think that you are hiding behind a general question because you have some some issues with a very specific situation. Why don’t you address what is really bugging you, it will make it easier for everybody to discuss it.