Catholics VS Health Care in America: Morally Embarrassing

[dmelosi]

Feel free to read the catechism I quoted again, and also the article. You are evidently not interested in anything that suggest that you have a responsibility to give to the poor. If you don’t want to give. The government has a right to take it from you.

I didn’t say you twist what is quoted, I said you twist what people say.

You have no idea what I give to the poor. There you go twisting again, that was never even discussed, for you to say that I have no interest is another example of you twisting things.

The government takes it away regardless of whether a person gives or not.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The government takes it away regardless of whether a person gives or not.

To right. We can’t rely on you to give a dame. Well-done to the government:clapping:. They should take more so that poor people can get proper and sufficient health care.

 

[bearer]

I. THE UNIVERSAL DESTINATION AND THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF GOODS

2402 In the beginning God entrusted the earth and its resources to the common stewardship of mankind to take care of them, master them by labor, and enjoy their fruits.187 The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence. The appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge. It should allow for a natural solidarity to develop between men.

2403 The right to private property, acquired or received in a just way,** does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind**. The universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.

2404 "In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself."188 The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others, first of all his family.

2405 Goods of production - material or immaterial - such as land, factories, practical or artistic skills, oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number. Those who hold goods for use and consumption should use them with moderation, reserving the better part for guests, for the sick and the poor.

II. RESPECT FOR PERSONS AND THEIR GOODS

2406 Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good.189

2407 In economic matters, respect for human dignity requires the practice of the virtue of temperance, so as to moderate attachment to this world’s goods; the practice of the virtue of justice, to preserve our neighbor’s rights and render him what is his due; and the practice of solidarity, in accordance with the golden rule and in keeping with the generosity of the Lord, who "though he was rich, yet for your sake . . . became poor so that by his poverty, you might become rich."190

Respect for the goods of others

2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others.191

You do not have an absolute right to place private property above the value of human life.

The Church has spoken; Let those who have eyes to see, see.

As you wrote previously:

Originally Posted by MindOverMatter2

Context is a key issue…

You’re reading way too far into Church teachings if you think that people have a right to receive free healthcare from the backs of others. Healthcare is not a gift of the earth; it is a ministry created and provided by individuals.

As I mentioned before, no emergency room is going to turn away anyone, regardless of ability to pay for goods and services, if there is immediate, essential need. Literally millions upon millions of dollars are written off as loss each year due to services provided to people who can’t or are unwilling to pay for them, all the more so in Catholic hospitals.

You’ve been arguing for pages for a system that offers no real benefit to the individual, the nation, or the common good. We have the best healthcare system in the world as it is. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

As you wrote previously:
You’re reading way too far into Church teachings

According to you people don’t have a moral duty to look after the health of other people. Its a business and that’s that. It is you that is not reading at all. Shame on you.

 

[JackQ]

Yes. What does that have to do with anything? I donate money to pay for poor people’s healthcare. That’s what He commanded.

I neither want nor need Washington to minister on my behalf.

I posted that Jesus said that others are entitled to our charity, You said that he didn’t say that. I showed you where he did say that. Then you said he was talking to his disciples not Caesar (I guess you think Caesar was exempt for some reason–was that just Augustus, or all of them?). So I pointed out that you are a disciple. You agreed with that, and acknowledged your duty to charity (pointing out that you, in fact, practice charity). So, then, Jesus did say that others are entitled to our charity, as I originally posted.

 

[bearer]

According to you people don’t have a moral duty to look after the health of other people. Its a business and that’s that. It is you that is not reading at all. Shame on you.

You are either gravely mistaken or a liar. Your conduct in throughout this thread is indeed shameful.

Quit twisting Church teachings to support your political ideals, plain and simple.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

As I mentioned before, no emergency room is going to turn away anyone, regardless of ability to pay for goods and services, if there is immediate, essential need. Literally millions upon millions of dollars are written off as loss each year due to services provided to people who can’t or are unwilling to pay for them, all the more so in Catholic hospitals.

So according to you this translates into the fact that all the poor are getting sufficient health care, and everybody else is telling porkys!!:clapping:

don’t fix it.

Its evident that you don’t want to fix it.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

You are either gravely mistaken or a liar. Your conduct in throughout this thread is indeed shameful.

Quit twisting Church teachings to support your political ideals, plain and simple.

I have twisted nothing. The facts that I have defended is evidently valid and true for any honest person who gives a dame. The Church is backing me up whether you like it or not.

 

[mitex]

So according to you this translates into the fact that all the poor are getting sufficient health care, and everybody else is telling porkys!!:clapping:

Its evident that you don’t want to fix it.

What’s your healthcare proposal? Just curious

 

[bearer]

I posted that Jesus said that others are entitled to our charity, You said that he didn’t say that. I showed you where he did say that. Then you said he was talking to his disciples not Caesar (I guess you think Caesar was exempt for some reason–was that just Augustus, or all of them?). So I pointed out that you are a disciple. You agreed with that, and acknowledged your duty to charity (pointing out that you, in fact, practice charity). So, then, Jesus did say that others are entitled to our charity, as I originally posted.

You are either thinking in circles or misunderstanding the meaning of ‘entitlement’ as used in today’s political context.

Individual Christians are commanded to minister to the sick (namely by visiting them) and needy. We are to pay taxes to benevolent governments who provide services to the citizenry. However, THERE IS NO BIBLICAL BASIS FOR ANY GOVERNMENT TO ENACT FREE AND UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE.

To make a long story short, charity is a free and willing act by the individual, whether along or in partnership with others. Entitlement is the political right to such acts as provided by the government. That right simply doesn’t exist, except in the minds of, for lack of a more comprehensive term, liberal-minded politicos and fanatics.

Access is one thing, entitlement a whole other ballgame…

 

[Al_Moritz]

You are either gravely mistaken or a liar. Your conduct in throughout this thread is indeed shameful.

Oh really? MindOverMatter is behaving much more like a Catholic than most others here, whose moral callousness is shocking, as I said (I have not read too many of your posts to see where you stand, so you may be lucky).

It’s the typical Neo-Con moral callousness that is also responsible for shameful excesses like these:

washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/booing-a-gay-soldier-cheering-execution/2011/09/26/gIQAmp8K0K_blog.html

 

[bearer]

I have twisted nothing. The facts that I have defended is evidently valid and true for any honest person who gives a dame. The Church is backing me up whether you like it or not.

Pardon me, but you’re wrong.

May God continue to bless you as you seek to do His Holy Will. Peace!

 

[bearer]

Oh really? MindOverMatter is behaving much more like a Catholic than most others here, whose moral callousness is shocking, as I said (I have not read too many of your posts to see where you stand, so you may be lucky).

It’s the typical Neo-Con moral callousness that is also responsible for shameful excesses like these:

washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/booing-a-gay-soldier-cheering-execution/2011/09/26/gIQAmp8K0K_blog.html

You guys just can’t see the forest for the trees. Stop using your misunderstanding of Scripture and Church teaching to promote political ideals. You’re going to get burned sooner or later.

 

[vsedriver]

Ah…yes…blame the victim. Good job!

you can’t solve a problem if you don’t find the root cause. This isn’t about blame but about solving a problem.

Fact: statistics show that the majority of the homeless are mentally ill or addicts
Fact: there are programs in place both governmental and private to help the homeless
Fact: laws prevent forced care for the mentally ill and addicted

You can’t eliminate the homeless problem until you address the problem of mental illness and addiction. No matter how much money you throw at the problem without legislating treatment you aren’t going to solve the homeless problem.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Pardon me, but you’re wrong.

Whatever floats your boat

Have a nice day

Godbless.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

you can’t solve a problem if you don’t find the root cause. This isn’t about blame but about solving a problem.

Fact: statistics show that the majority of the homeless are mentally ill or addicts
Fact: there are programs in place both governmental and private to help the homeless
Fact: laws prevent forced care for the mentally ill and addicted

You can’t eliminate the homeless problem until you address the problem of mental illness and addiction. No matter how much money you throw at the problem without legislating treatment you aren’t going to solve the homeless problem.

You have to address the issue of why they are mentally ill and drug addicted. They were not born that way, and whether we like it or not the nature of society helps to influence the mentality of the individual and his or her sense of self worth. Most people on drugs are dealing with insecurities and a lack of self worth.

1. In the first place I see no evidence to back up the claim that most of them are conveniently homeless because they took drugs. So far you have only made it evident that when they are found in that state of homelessness that are on drugs; which is not surprising.
2. “most” is not all.
3. That they are on drugs does not take away the governments moral responsibility towards them. Perhaps if they didn’t live in a morally indifferent economy where nobody gives a dame about the poor, they might not feel the need to address their lack of self worth with drugs and alcoholic in the first place; and mentally ill people would be taken care of and would have never become homeless in the first place because there would be measures in place to prevent that kind of thing. But then you wouldn’t have an excuse would you.

Its called blaming the victim.

 

[vsedriver]

You have to address the issue of why they are mentally ill and drug addicted. They were not born that way, and whether we like it or not the nature of society helps to influence the mentality of the individual and his or her sense of self worth. Most people on drugs are dealing with insecurities and a lack of self worth.

Not all mentally ill and drug addicted are homeless. Therefore it is the homeless mentally ill and addicted that need assistance. And yes, some are born that way. Mental illness can be genetic, or result of birth defect, an accident etc. And it is family that influences the individual far more than society. So it is in the state’s best interest to improve the quality of families which would mean supporting long term marriage and discouraging divorce. Tax breaks to relieve the financial burden on parents and other perks for maintaining a stable home.

1. In the first place I see no evidence to back up the claim that most of them are conveniently homeless because they took drugs. So far you have only made it evident that when they are found in that state of homelessness that are on drugs; which is not surprising.

They are homeless because their mental illness or addictions keep them from earning enough money to care for themselves. Addiction includes more than drugs. It can also include alcohol and gambling. You definitely are twisting my words. If you can’t hold down a job due to mental illness or addiction the odds are high you will end up homeless. Some of these people actually have homes they could go to yet don’t.

1. “most” is not all.

so? those who are homeless for other reasons have access to services and generally do get off of the streets eventually because they are willing to take advantage of aid to the homeless.

1. That they are on drugs does not take away the governments moral responsibility towards them. Perhaps if they didn’t live in a morally indifferent economy where nobody gives a dame about the poor, they might not feel the need to address their lack of self worth with drugs and alcoholic in the first place;

again, you miss the point. First you assume that people become addicts due to a poor self image.Facts not in evidence. Most people take drugs and alcohol because they like it. Once addicted it is darn hard to kick the habit. As the effects of the rush or high affect the brain they need stronger and stronger stimuli and some drugs can really be hard to stop. Alcohol also has a physical hold that is very hard to break.

and mentally ill people would be taken care of and would have never become homeless in the first place because there would be measures in place to prevent that kind of thing. But then you wouldn’t have an excuse would you.

Once again you lack knowledge of the situation. At one time the family could commit a mentally ill person to a county home. States ran mental institutions to care for the mentally ill. Then legislation was introduced that said you couldn’t force a person into a mental hospital or force them to take meds. So these people checked themselves out of the hospitals and moved out to the streets. These people can’t be touched until they hurt themselves or someone else. But they can’t take care of themselves. So they become homeless or are paranoids who won’t be cared for.

You can have all the social services under the sun but that doesn’t mean people will use them. I know this is hard for you to understand but there are homeless people in this country who wish to remain homeless.

Its called blaming the victim

.

I’m not blaming anyone. I’m outlining a known history.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I’m not blaming anyone. I’m outlining a known history.

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.

 

[JackQ]

You are either thinking in circles or misunderstanding the meaning of ‘entitlement’ as used in today’s political context.

Individual Christians are commanded to minister to the sick (namely by visiting them) and needy. We are to pay taxes to benevolent governments who provide services to the citizenry. However, THERE IS NO BIBLICAL BASIS FOR ANY GOVERNMENT TO ENACT FREE AND UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE.

To make a long story short, charity is a free and willing act by the individual, whether along or in partnership with others. Entitlement is the political right to such acts as provided by the government. That right simply doesn’t exist, except in the minds of, for lack of a more comprehensive term, liberal-minded politicos and fanatics.

Access is one thing, entitlement a whole other ballgame…

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.

 

[tonyrey]

Either you’re really sensitive to ideas and statements you disagree with, or you think just about everything is some kind of logical fallacy. Stop accusing others and contribute to the discussion.

You remind of protesters with their signs and chants demanding “universal healthcare now!” When you go and try to engage in an intelligent discussion, they respond again with, “universal healthcare now!”

Not one word you have written addresses the issue:

**It is the responsibility of the government to provide health care for those who cannot pay for it when no one else helps them.
**