Catholics VS Health Care in America: Morally Embarrassing

[jannes]

Just a thougt to everyone who thinks National health care would bankrupt the country.What if we privatise the police force ,or the fire dept ,just think if the police have to help you ,you get sent a bill. If your premises go on fire you pay the bill for their services and if the fire spreads to someone elses property you pay their bill also.After all why should my taxes pay for someone elses misfortune These type of services are covered under our taxes because they have the potential to do extreme damage to society as a whole.Well so does poor health care.What is more damaging to a society than sick children, bitter angry parents,and as a former hospital employee let me tell you bacteria and viruses love the rich as well as the poor no class discrimination there.And what about making inmates pay for their incarcerations and executions .Why should I have to pay taxes for them as I’m a law abiding citizen .The list goes on .If you have moral objections to aborton and b/control then you can apply to have a rebate on that portion you don’t approve of .very simple…By the way the financial woes of Europe are no worse than U.S.A. politicians here are using them as a smoke screen to cover the woes here.which were all started wih the deregulaton of the banks and uncontrolled greed.The basic values of this country should include access to good health care.

 

[Cristiano]

It would be immoral if you didn’t contribute to the needs of others.

To eat healthy is good; for to eat means that you care about your well-being and health. But to eat healthy while ignoring the health of others and your moral duty to share with those that don’t have, is evil. This doesn’t require you to stop eating healthy; it just requires you to contribute to other peoples well being in so far as that is possible and practical. That might mean giving up luxuries or spending less on yourself. Yes; it will mean sacrifice. This is quite simply the law of love. Anything else is to steal from God…

This sounds more of a rationalization by addressing only the behavior of eating healthy, Europeans can lower the amount they eat and their standard of living without being unhealthy and they could use the money that covers the difference for the poor. Americans and Europeans waste a lot of money for convenience and not for need.

…Surely, you being a Catholic, won’t mind some of your taxes going over seas to poor developing countries do you?

First this is a red herring and it is just playing on emotional reactions because the way I see the use of my tax money does not justify the immoral behavior of others,

Second, I do mind a lot about my taxes being used that way, firmly believe that taxes should be used locally and nothing more. I think that the way some taxes are collected and used is immoral. However, I do not have any issue contributing to charitable donations to poor people in developing countries.

I keep seeing a lot of judgmental finger pointing but I do not hear any mea culpa.

 

[JimG]

Just a thougt to everyone who thinks National health care would bankrupt the country.What if we privatise the police force ,or the fire dept ,just think if the police have to help you ,you get sent a bill. If your premises go on fire you pay the bill for their services and if the fire spreads to someone elses property you pay their bill also.After all why should my taxes pay for someone elses misfortune These type of services are covered under our taxes because they have the potential to do extreme damage to society as a whole.Well so does poor health care.What is more damaging to a society than sick children, bitter angry parents,and as a former hospital employee let me tell you bacteria and viruses love the rich as well as the poor no class discrimination there.And what about making inmates pay for their incarcerations and executions .Why should I have to pay taxes for them as I’m a law abiding citizen .The list goes on .If you have moral objections to aborton and b/control then you can apply to have a rebate on that portion you don’t approve of .very simple…By the way the financial woes of Europe are no worse than U.S.A. politicians here are using them as a smoke screen to cover the woes here.which were all started wih the deregulaton of the banks and uncontrolled greed.The basic values of this country should include access to good health care.

Firefighters and police forces, of course, are not nationalized. Police and Fire Departments are funded and paid for at the local level by local taxes, raised by local taxing entities which can not engage in deficit spending. Consequently, they are careful in how the money is spent, and recognize limits.

I would love to have a healthcare system in which everyone is entitled to free healthcare. Medicare works sort of like that. But Medicare engages in deficit spending. One can keep the system going as long as there are tax funds coming in combined with peole willing to lend the government money to support deficit spending. But the population is aging, there are becoming fewer taxpayers as a percent of total population. Ultimately it will collapse if not changed.

We can raise taxes on the rich, raise taxes on the middle class, and siphon every dime of people’s income, but we still must design a system which is not headed for bankruptcy.

 

[jannes]

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.

The" rationing"you mention in Canada is based at a very compassionate and humane level.I’ve been resident in Canada for forty four years and no one I know suffering from any serious illness was denied treatment unless it was an unproven medication or procedure.As we live close to the border sometimes if there is an unusual health problem that perhaps the USA has facilities for treatment Canada pays the expense to send the patient there because its cheaper than building a facility for a problem that is maybe a one of.Be assured Canada is the country that came through the recession better than any other country and woe to any poitician who tries to tinker with our healthcare , its instant garbage heap for him/her .Our doctors and medical staff are among the highest paid in the world also among the highest qualified Check out HHSC / McMaster medical center for an example.I know there are people who engineer stories to show us as a bad example of health care you will find they are usually insurance cmpanies or American politicians who pay bribes to some Canadian citizens to badmouth our system but once again ,No Canadian poltician would even go there

 

[TimothyH]

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.

If life and death is the measuring stick, then many things, including food and water, are not businesses in the normal sense of the word, are they? Must we then pay for food for everyone who does not have any? Is not doing so a participation in murder?

What about heat in winter? Transportation to doctors? Phone service so people can dial 911.

The fact is, no one is denied medical care in the USA except for unborn infants. If a bum throws up on himself in the street, a dozen guys in $250,000 rescue trucks roll out to take him to the hospital.

-Tim-

 

[jannes]

The" rationing"you mention in Canada is based at a very compassionate and humane level.I’ve been resident in Canada for forty four years and no one I know suffering from any serious illness was denied treatment unless it was an unproven medication or procedure.As we live close to the border sometimes if there is an unusual health problem that perhaps the USA has facilities for treatment Canada pays the expense to send the patient there because its cheaper than building a facility for a problem that is maybe a one of.Be assured Canada is the country that came through the recession better than any other country and woe to any poitician who tries to tinker with our healthcare , its instant garbage heap for him/her .Our doctors and medical staff are among the highest paid in the world also among the highest qualified Check out HHSC / McMaster medical center for an example.I know there are people who engineer stories to show us as a bad example of health care you will find they are usually insurance companies or American politicians who pay bribes to some Canadian citizens to badmouth our system but once again ,No Canadian poltician would even go there

PS My husband has a stomache problem for over twenty years and his specialist is DR Anvari .Look up his qualifications he’s the Doctor who pioneered remote control surgey in space.the Americans have been desperate for him to jump the border for years .He works out of St Joseph’s hosp Hamilton Ontario.Now would you call that rationing healthcare???I can’t imagine the cost to have his expertise if I lived in the US

 

[Viki63]

The fact is, no one is denied medical care in the USA except for unborn infants. If a bum throws up on himself in the street, a dozen guys in $250,000 rescue trucks roll out to take him to the hospital.

-Tim-

So why is it that I talk every day to people who can’t afford both their medication and food, or don’t take their children to the doctor because they can’t afford the co-pay, or the doctor refuses to see them again until they have paid the $250 they owe him? (Ok, not the doctor, the receptionist won’t make the appointment until it’s cleared with billing.)
These are elderly or poor people who don’t have $250 to pay the doc. Sure, they eventually may go to the ER, but their illness will be worse by then, and it will cost us all much more since hospitals spread the cost to others, And the people I talk to are all covered by health insurance, but under-insured. There’s more help if you have none.
God help those of us who have insurance and get sick.

 

[Cristiano]

What is interesting here that while people talk in general terms as they do not look at aberrations that could happen an do happen even more in the case of a universal health care system. Just look at the example of the girl that is being refused a kidney transplant because she mentally incapacitated, one of the parent chose to donate his/her own kidney to avoid issues about the receiver not being qualified enough because of reduced mental capabilities, the money is available and the doctor still chooses not to operate because the patient is not worthy of life because of her handicap. A lot of doctors in the Europe, where universal care is implemented, have the same attitude. In the good old Europe people are euthanized and children killed immediately after birth because they are not considered worthy of life, that happens more frequently in systems with government controlled health care than in independent systems like the US where fear of financial retribution is great.

 

[Cristiano]

  The fact is, no one is denied medical care in the USA except for unborn infants........

According to Nancy Pelosi, a representative that wants to have universal care, the newborns should not have any protection as human beings until the leave the hospital. So sadly the problem might not be limited to the unborn, it could depend on the doctors or nurses.

However, I disagree with the rest of your statement because it refers only to emergency care and if it were more about preventive care the cost of unpaid emergency care would be much lower.

 

[cyrusthegreat]

Why would any Catholic be Against Free Health Care?

Am i the only Catholic that finds this idea Morally Embarrassing?

I understand what you are asking. Wealth is relative. A wealthy man will always find a reason why not to part with his wealth, even if it could stop someone’s suffering. We would prefer to think the suffering of the poor is of their own doing, they didn’t save, they didn’t go to collage, they didn’t sacrifice, they didn’t try hard enough, they squandered what little they had, if I give to them there will be none left for me, and so on.

I was in Costa Rica once and asked a tour guide about the socialized health program in his country. Specifically how did he feel at the time of the Sandinista and Contra revolution, when so many Nicaraguans sought refuge in Costa Rica. He said the Costa Rican population about doubled in those days. So how did he feel when the day a refugee set foot in Costa Rica and were offered access to the same medical benefits available to Costa Ricans, who had paid into the system all their lives. He said it was tough, but how could we turn them away. How could you look into the face of a father who’s son was suffering, and not help. How could we have lived with ourselves. We are so fortunate in the USA.

Maybe it’s much easier to give when you have very little, then to give when one has so very much. Trusting in Jesus is easier said than done.

Matthew 19:16-24
Matthew 22:34-40

 

[MindOverMatter2]

If life and death is the measuring stick, then many things, including food and water, are not businesses in the normal sense of the word, are they? Must we then pay for food for everyone who does not have any? Is not doing so a participation in murder?

-Tim-

If somebody has no money for food, and if they do not have the means or the practical opportunity to produce it, and the government lets them starve to death, then that government is participating in murder and theft. If you can help somebody that you know is starving, and you have the practical means to help that person but won’t help, then you will find yourself going to hell if you do not repent and change.

God really meant it when he said love thy neighbor; he was not joking with you or saying it half heartedly.

 

[JackQ]

It will never happen, the Neo-cons on here are against most of the Churches teachings. The Pope is Anti-death penalty, Neo’s are for it, The Pope says healthcare is a right, Neo’s are against universal health care. The Church teaches that we are initialed to a livable wage, Neo’s are against it as well. About the only issue where they agree with the Church is on abortion, however there only solution for this is to vote Republican. Even if you know that the Republicans are not going to do anything to stop it, they still try to demand that we all vote with them.

Yeah, well, some of them might even be Republican operatives. I used to suspect, and recently learned, that they do in fact infiltrate religious bodies. They’ve turned Evangelical Christianity into an arm of the Party, now they’re trying to make inroads into the Catholic Church. On the abortion question, one thing that they really don’t want is pro-life Democrats; indeed they will field candidates against them, and make bogus claims that the Democrat isn’t really pro-life. Pro-life Democrats are a major nuisance, because it takes away the argument that you must vote Republican to vote pro-life and, hence, in accordance with Catholic doctrine.

Of course, the Democrats certainly have allowed themselves to be overtaken by Moloch worshippers, and seem to be little concerned about alienating Catholics. I am far from asserting, here, that the Democratic Party is the party of the righteous.

Sometimes I think that voting is the equivalent of deciding who I want killed. I’m just glad that the Second Coming won’t be the outcome of an election.

 

[JackQ]

I understand what you are asking. Wealth is relative. A wealthy man will always find a reason why not to part with his wealth, even if it could stop someone’s suffering. We would prefer to think the suffering of the poor is of their own doing, they didn’t save, they didn’t go to collage, they didn’t sacrifice, they didn’t try hard enough, they squandered what little they had, if I give to them there will be none left for me, and so on.

I was in Costa Rica once and asked a tour guide about the socialized health program in his country. Specifically how did he feel at the time of the Sandinista and Contra revolution, when so many Nicaraguans sought refuge in Costa Rica. He said the Costa Rican population about doubled in those days. So how did he feel when the day a refugee set foot in Costa Rica and were offered access to the same medical benefits available to Costa Ricans, who had paid into the system all their lives. He said it was tough, but how could we turn them away. How could you look into the face of a father who’s son was suffering, and not help. How could we have lived with ourselves. We are so fortunate in the USA.

Maybe it’s much easier to give when you have very little, then to give when one has so very much. Trusting in Jesus is easier said than done.

Matthew 19:16-24
Matthew 22:34-40

I hate to burst any bubbles, but the United States did not become the world’s preeminent military and economic power by following the Sermon on the Mount. And since we are a republic, our government to a large extent reflects the character of our people.

 

[JimG]

Yeah, well, some of them might even be Republican operatives. I used to suspect, and recently learned, that they do in fact infiltrate religious bodies. They’ve turned Evangelical Christianity into an arm of the Party, now they’re trying to make inroads into the Catholic Church. On the abortion question, one thing that they really don’t want is pro-life Democrats; indeed they will field candidates against them, and make bogus claims that the Democrat isn’t really pro-life. Pro-life Democrats are a major nuisance, because it takes away the argument that you must vote Republican to vote pro-life and, hence, in accordance with Catholic doctrine.

Of course, the Democrats certainly have allowed themselves to be overtaken by Moloch worshippers, and seem to be little concerned about alienating Catholics. I am far from asserting, here, that the Democratic Party is the party of the righteous.

Sometimes I think that voting is the equivalent of deciding who I want killed. I’m just glad that the Second Coming won’t be the outcome of an election.

But the chief obstacle to pro-life Democrats is the Democratic Party Platform and the Democratic Party leadership. I’ve been a Democrat my whole life, but the party of Al Smith and JFK and Hubert Humphrey did not advocate for abortion. I didn’t leave the Democratic party; it left me.

 

[Brendan]

But the chief obstacle to pro-life Democrats is the Democratic Party Platform and the Democratic Party leadership. I’ve been a Democrat my whole life, but the party of Al Smith and JFK and Hubert Humphrey did not advocate for abortion. I didn’t leave the Democratic party; it left me.

That was my parents perspective as well. The last Democrat that they voted for was Jimmy Carter, and they did so that a Southern Baptist would appoint Judges to the Supreme Court that would over turn Roe v Wade.

Since then they have not voted for another Democrat.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

This sounds more of a rationalization by addressing only the behavior of eating healthy, Europeans can lower the amount they eat and their standard of living without being unhealthy and they could use the money that covers the difference for the poor. Americans and Europeans waste a lot of money for convenience and not for need.

I am sure thats true. Good luck.

First this is a red herring and it is just playing on emotional reactions because the way I see the use of my tax money does not justify the immoral behavior of others,

You cannot justify letting people die; and your attempt to justify it only shows how morally flawed your mind really is.

Second, I do mind a lot about my taxes being used that way, firmly believe that taxes should be used locally and nothing more.

If its impractical or impossible to give to other countries then no wrong has occurred; anything else is just greed.

I keep seeing a lot of judgmental finger pointing.

I am just saying the truth. I really don’t care if you don’t like it.

 

[JackQ]

But the chief obstacle to pro-life Democrats is the Democratic Party Platform and the Democratic Party leadership. I’ve been a Democrat my whole life, but the party of Al Smith and JFK and Hubert Humphrey did not advocate for abortion. I didn’t leave the Democratic party; it left me.

You’re right about the change in the Party from the good old days. Actually both the Republicans and Democrats have become more extremist than they once were. The objection used to be that there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between them.

The Platform, of course, is largely symbolic. Members of the Party aren’t bound by it. But there is certainly a powerful pro-choice element in the power structure of the Democratic Party, and pro-choice Democrats are going to get pressure from their own party to get in line while the Republican Party attacks them for not being really pro-life (because only Republicans can be pro-life).

Honestly, I can barely abide either Party, and hope that a Centrist party emerges. I do really object when someone says that their political party is the Christian party, because that’s just not true of either one of them. For awhile, only the Republicans were doing that, but now I see that the Democrats are trying on the strategy for size. I think it’s sacrilegious.

 

[Speedypizza]

You’re right about the change in the Party from the good old days. Actually both the Republicans and Democrats have become more extremist than they once were. The objection used to be that there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between them.

The Platform, of course, is largely symbolic. Members of the Party aren’t bound by it. But there is certainly a powerful pro-choice element in the power structure of the Democratic Party, and pro-choice Democrats are going to get pressure from their own party to get in line while the Republican Party attacks them for not being really pro-life (because only Republicans can be pro-life).

Honestly, I can barely abide either Party, and hope that a Centrist party emerges. I do really object when someone says that their political party is the Christian party, because that’s just not true of either one of them. For awhile, only the Republicans were doing that, but now I see that the Democrats are trying on the strategy for size. I think it’s sacrilegious.

Thank you, that was very well said.

Now if everybody on here who likes to laugh, I want to throw out a crazy theory that I have come up with years ago. The worst part about this crazy idea is how well it seems to fit what is going on in every presidential election I have seen. Now I am not saying this is what the parties are REALLY doing, but I am not saying it is truly impossible either… NEITHER PARTY WANTS TO WIN, AND DOES EVERYTHING THAT THEY CAN TO LOSE THE ELECTION!

Can you really come up with another reason WHY the Republicans would run a old and slightly senile man with a VP who does not even know where most countries in the world are? This was really the best they could come up with?
What do the Democrats do to try to come up with somebody worse. They pull a self-serving black man who goes to a KNOWN white-hating church, whose whole history is being a ultra left wing activist. Now you tell me which group is REALLY trying to win…

 

[JackQ]

It will never happen, the Neo-cons on here are against most of the Churches teachings. The Pope is Anti-death penalty, Neo’s are for it, The Pope says healthcare is a right, Neo’s are against universal health care. The Church teaches that we are initialed to a livable wage, Neo’s are against it as well. About the only issue where they agree with the Church is on abortion, however there only solution for this is to vote Republican. Even if you know that the Republicans are not going to do anything to stop it, they still try to demand that we all vote with them.

That’s true enough. And even if they get enough Supreme Court justices appointed that will overturn Roe -v- Wade, abortion will still be legal in California. The only way to make it illegal throughout the United States is by constitutional amendment. We’ll need two-thirds of Congress and three-fifths of the State legislatures for that to happen. And even if it does, unless the underlying social conditions that give rise to abortions are dealt with effectively, the effort will probably be about as successful as the war on drugs. Women will just get illegal abortions. Or they’ll get them in Canada.

Now I’m not saying that abortion should be legal; it shouldn’t be. But saying that abortion should be illegal and at the same time opposing any social programs that would make the decision to get an abortion less likely is flatly irrational. That is, unless all they’re really looking for on the abortion issue is some sort of symbolic victory.

To rid this country of abortion, we have to win hearts and minds. We should be in the driver’s seat in that effort, because there is no reasonable argument in favor of abortion. Alas, much of the pro-life movement seems more interested in Republican majorities than in saving lives.

 

[jannes]

I was visiting Cape Coral last winter.I was bitten by a black widow spider.The bill from Lee Memorial hosp.listed $1500 just to sign in.The total bill $4500 for two xrays blood work and two shots of morphine .If you happen to be visiting Canada and this happened to you the bill would have been $148 even for a non resident