Catholics VS Health Care in America: Morally Embarrassing

  • Thread starter Thread starter MindOverMatter2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
But where did Christ give that duty to the State? John 21 seems to give that clearly to Peter and the Church.

And thus taxing for this is Ceasar taking what is God’s for himself.

And why is it ‘Nations’ that have to help others? Is not Matthew 25 and individual command.

Since you are among the rich (relative to the Tanzanians), how much do YOU give personally.
 
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.
:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

And mom2, I agree with you on health care but you might want to take a debate class. The point of dialogue is you bring others to your position, not polarization.

And you can’t take the moral high ground on health care and not be even more outraged about the evil of abortion. It is very relevant to discussions of morality, even if we aren’t “run by a catholic authority.”

And for the last time, abortion is not covered under obamacare. It’s not. Period. This isn’t up for debate.
 
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.
And the proof of that is in lawsuits. How many universities have been named in the never-ending stream of class-action lawsuits against drug companies? Is there any doubt that schools like Harvard, with their very large endowments, would be named as defendants in those cases if they had actually developed those drugs?

Peace

Tim
 
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.
There is a difference between “contributions” or charity and the confiscation of the earnings of others. Speaking of the rich…one of the richest men in government, John Kerry, gave exactly ZERO to charity according to his tax files. Kerry is one of the leading tax and spenders. Taxation is not charity.🤷
 
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.
How is it that people with “proper” health care die?

No one is denied healthcare if they can’t afford it. In my county, our county hospital district spent about $1.1 billion on charity care in 2011. NO ONE is denied health care just because they can’t afford it.

hchdonline.com/about/census.htm

Peace

Tim
 
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!
You don’t seem to like doctors much. My cousin’s son graduated with a bachelors of science petroleum engineering degree three years ago and his starting salary was more than $75,000.
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.
I don’t want a C student operating on me. You may be ok with that, but I’m not.
Then, the cost of the school comes close to one million dollars at schools like NYU…
Factually incorrect. A four year term at the NYU medical school, based on their estimated cost for the 2010-2011 school year, is about $280,000 and that includes room and board and personal expenses, an expense one would have regardless. A lot of money but nowhere near a million dollars.
There is no legitimate reason that any degree costs that much.
What do you base that on?
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.
Why, do they allow C students into medical school?

Peace

Tim
 
The Church and the Pope are in favor of universal health care! If you are not in favor, you are AGAINST the holy father.
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004736.htm

(Now of course the same people who will throw anything that the Holy Father has ever said that is remotely in their favor in your face will start to SCREAM how we don’t have to obey the Pope on this. )
 
The Church and the Pope are in favor of universal health care! If you are not in favor, you are AGAINST the holy father.
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004736.htm

(Now of course the same people who will throw anything that the Holy Father has ever said that is remotely in their favor in your face will start to SCREAM how we don’t have to obey the Pope on this. )
Maybe I assumed wrong, but I was assuming that the original poster was talking about the universal health care law that the most pro abortion president ever put in place.
 
The Church and the Pope are in favor of universal health care! If you are not in favor, you are AGAINST the holy father.
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004736.htm
The opening paragraph of that article:
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.
Where in the U.S. is one denied access to health care if they can’t afford it?

Peace

Tim
 
But where did Christ give that duty to the State? John 21 seems to give that clearly to Peter and the Church.

And thus taxing for this is Ceasar taking what is God’s for himself.

And why is it ‘Nations’ that have to help others? Is not Matthew 25 and individual command.
This has to be the most funniest and biggest misrepresentation of scripture i have ever seen. You are completely ignoring the context. Some of what Jesus said was contextual; that is to say his command was limited and fulfilled only within a particular context. And thus to take it out of context would be to distort the original intent of what was said.

Luckily we have Catholic moral tradition, and thus reading scripture by yourself has a limited impact on how we interpret scripture and apply it to todays context.

Private Property***
Human beings do not have an absolute right to private property. All property belongs to God. You are born with a conditional right. Therefore if you use property in an abusive way, there is no guarantee that you will still have a moral right to that property. If i have a knife; i can say its mine, but if i go around stabbing people to death with it, i will find out that the police will confiscate that knife; and they will have to if they don’t want to find themselves guilty of aiding you in this crime by allowing you to keep the knife and continue murdering people with it. I cannot say that its “my property” and that therefore i should be allowed to walk around with that knife in prison. That is no defense. The dignity of peoples lives are more important than my right to property, or the knife in this particular scenario.

The same principle applies to the market place in respect of human need. If by owning a substantial amount of money or property leads to others not having enough, or if the market place is as such that a group of people have no positive chance of fulfilling their dignity as living human beings at any given time; then the market place and the people that profit from that market are accountable, and are committing murder and theft if they do not contribute to the needs of society. The government is also guilty of murder and theft if they do not take tax or take property from you in order to help restore the moral dignity of human beings. You don’t have a right to the money thats being taxed.

The question of what an individual should do in a society, and what the government should do in-order to protect the vulnerable in society (which includes the economically vulnerable), is dealing with two a different contexts, which do not necessarily result in the same conclusions. What a citizen should do and what the police should do when witnessing a crime is again different. What God should do if he sees a person being raped and what a human being should do when he sees somebody being raped is dealing with two different contexts which do not necessarily have the same conclusion and certainly do not and cannot if we expect to believe in a loving God. Jesus did not teach us the particulars of how to run a state. But I think he expected us to use our moral common sense in that regard, since he did teach us to love thy neighbor.

Surely you didn’t think that simply meant your American neighbor alone did you?
Since you are among the rich (relative to the Tanzanians), how much do YOU give personally.
Just because i live among the rich does not mean that i am rich; and just because i am not a Tanzanian does not mean that i can practically afford to give much to anyone when you place my needs in the context of minimum wage and the high cost of living in London. You give according to what you have. But the government takes tax, and perhaps some of that goes to aid in other countries; plus what ever you can give to the Church. The last time i looked there was 2.49 million unemployed in the UK, and those people are therefore unable to give charity to any reasonable degree in the sense money. Yes; even in rich countries there are people hovering barely above the poverty line and some, while they are certainly better off than people in other countries, they are still living in poverty insofar as they cannot provide for themselves and are reliant on handouts which represents a very small amount of money when looked at in the proper context of the high cost of living in London. The government has to tax so that 2.49 million unemployed people do not become homeless and starve to death.
 
the most pro abortion president ever put in place.
LOL, that is really funny. Abortion did not become a law on his watch, nor did Bush even TALK about trying to pass a law to ban abortion.

What you fail to see is that the worst thing that could ever happen to the Republicans in this country is if abortion was ever outlawed, and don’t think the higher ups in the party do not know this. IF abortion was outlawed tomorrow, they would lose a large chunk of voters who are single issue voters but who are socially liberal, as the Church herself clearly is. They have NO interest in changing the law, they give it lip service, and do small token things to look good (like Bush cutting funding to stem cell research), but they are NEVER going to do anything about it, even if we voted them in to every office.
 
LOL, that is really funny. Abortion did not become a law on his watch, nor did Bush even TALK about trying to pass a law to ban abortion.

What you fail to see is that the worst thing that could ever happen to the Republicans in this country is if abortion was ever outlawed, and don’t think the higher ups in the party do not know this. IF abortion was outlawed tomorrow, they would lose a large chunk of voters who are single issue voters but who are socially liberal, as the Church herself clearly is. They have NO interest in changing the law, they give it lip service, and do small token things to look good (like Bush cutting funding to stem cell research), but they are NEVER going to do anything about it, even if we voted them in to every office.
Obama argued the infants born alive act, do you know what that is?

It is very simple to tell how pro abortion someone is, simply do the research on how they vote. Especially do some research on the types of judges the presidents appoint.

Appointing judges is the opposite of a token thing as you put it.
Those that try to belittle others by claiming a person is a single issue voter is a very good indicator in mind that they are married to their party.
 
Obama argued the infants born alive act, do you know what that is?

It is very simple to tell how pro abortion someone is, simply do the research on how they vote. Especially do some research on the types of judges the presidents appoint.

Appointing judges is the opposite of a token thing as you put it.
Those that try to belittle others by claiming a person is a single issue voter is a very good indicator in mind that they are married to their party.
If you look at the voting record of Clinton, he was about the same as Obama. When he was in office, he was the devil, now Obama is, and whoever the next Democrat president is will also be in the eyes of the far right, what is new with that?

I hate to be the one to burst your bubble but I am registered independent and voted for Bush both times. I also voted for Obama, in large part because of the vile hate I saw coming from the far right about him. That and the fact that I did not think Palin knew enough to be President if it came to that. I am not sure who I am voting for in the next election, Obama or the new guy, but I will say I am less then thrilled with Obama’s work thus far. When he said “Change” I did not think he meant that instead of being lied to and screwed over by a self-centered white guy we would now we lied to and screwed over by a self-centered black guy.
 
There is a difference between “contributions” or charity and the confiscation of the earnings of others. Speaking of the rich…one of the richest men in government, John Kerry, gave exactly ZERO to charity according to his tax files. Kerry is one of the leading tax and spenders. Taxation is not charity.🤷
Taxation is a necessity, when given capitalism.
 
If you look at the voting record of Clinton, he was about the same as Obama. When he was in office, he was the devil, now Obama is, and whoever the next Democrat president is will also be in the eyes of the far right, what is new with that?

I hate to be the one to burst your bubble but I am registered independent and voted for Bush both times. I also voted for Obama, in large part because of the vile hate I saw coming from the far right about him. That and the fact that I did not think Palin knew enough to be President if it came to that. I am not sure who I am voting for in the next election, Obama or the new guy, but I will say I am less then thrilled with Obama’s work thus far. When he said “Change” I did not think he meant that instead of being lied to and screwed over by a self-centered white guy we would now we lied to and screwed over by a self-centered black guy.
So do you or do you not know what the infants born alive act is?
 
If you look at the voting record of Clinton, he was about the same as Obama. When he was in office, he was the devil, now Obama is, and whoever the next Democrat president is will also be in the eyes of the far right, what is new with that?

I hate to be the one to burst your bubble but I am registered independent and voted for Bush both times. I also voted for Obama, in large part because of the vile hate I saw coming from the far right about him. That and the fact that I did not think Palin knew enough to be President if it came to that. I am not sure who I am voting for in the next election, Obama or the new guy, but I will say I am less then thrilled with Obama’s work thus far. When he said “Change” I did not think he meant that instead of being lied to and screwed over by a self-centered white guy we would now we lied to and screwed over by a self-centered black guy.
:D.I can’t believe you guys didn’t see that coming. I am black; and i love the idea of a black president; but that was just a stunt to make the establishment look good.:eek: Throw the people a life changing tear jerker experience, and everybody forgets that they are being ripped off.
 
So do you or do you not know what the infants born alive act is?
I do, and I if you think I am so dumb as to walk into this trap with somebody who has just called me “Married to my party” when I do not have a party, you have one more screw loose then I already thought. Clinton would have done the same thing and so would most other Democrats. Your trying to use this to turn Obama into the devil is not going to work on me.
 
:D.I can’t believe you guys didn’t see that coming. I am black; and i love the idea of a black president; but that was just a stunt to make the establishment look good.:eek: Throw the people a life changing tear jerker experience, and everybody forgets that they are being ripped off.
LOL, I will admit, I fell for it hook line and sinker. 😃
 
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.
This is just another weak attempt at closing your eyes to the issue being debated. Sorry, it doesn’t fade me in the slightest
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top