M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
And your point is?
- Status
D
dmelosi
Guest
The point is that you don’t seem to mind.And your point is?
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
I am sure that is what you want to believe.
D
dmelosi
Guest
I do not in any way shape or form want to believe it, but that is the message you are sending. And by sending that message, you may be having an influence on causing others to sin in the same way. Throughout your posts you have shown that you have accepted abortion as something that cannot be changed in your law, or something you are not concerned with. You are not only sliding down that slippery slope, but you are encouraging others to slide down it with you.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
That is a load of rubbish. I see abortion as something that has to be tackled separately from the fact of free health care.
J
JackQ
Guest
Okay, I’ll bite. Why does universal health care HAVE to include abortion?
C
cyrusthegreat
Guest
I guess you have now changed the subject from Michelle’s patriotism to abortion. Abortion is indefensible. I have never known anyone to be “pro abortion”. There is no civil law against lust, adultery, or gluttony. Can there be a greater offence than blasphemy, yet there is no civil law to deter such behavior. Can we make people love each other by passing a law. The fact that there are no such laws should not imply that these evils are condoned or advocated. Islamic countries tend to follow laws that are based purely on their religious beliefs. This wouldn’t go over too well in a nation that so adamantly touts “freedom”. It is most assuming to suggest a person is pro abortion, or “wants many of those born killed”, because they are pro choice. That would be to say that to be in favor of “free will” is to advocate sin. We must change the hearts and minds of those who would accept abortion as an alternative. A civil law will not do that, any more than we could make a law that requires that everyone must follow the Catholic belief. To reverse Roe v Wade would be a great step in changing those hearts and minds, only as far as it would remove the perception that abortion is an acceptable human behavior. Abortion did not begin with the court’s decision on Roe v Wade, nor will it cease when Roe v Wade is overturned, and it will be. Until all of our citizens learn to love and fear God, as they must, will such offences end.
You stated, “ as he has argued the infants born alive act, he wants many of those born killed.” Where do you get this stuff? Senate Bill 1082 as well as the Federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002, are both definition bills. Neither is about what can and should be done to “Born alive infants”; they are about how one defines a “Born alive infant”. This false claim originated on Fox News with right-wing activist Bill Bennett, Sean Hannity and Jerome Corsi. If untruth is repeated often enough, it is believed.
C
cyrusthegreat
Guest
you totally missed the point
C
cyrusthegreat
Guest
D
dmelosi
Guest
Where did I change the subject about Michelle’s patriotism.
I gave you the link once, yet you keep ignoring what is coming out of Obama’s mouth. That he argued the infants born alive act, that he did in fact argue that if an abortion failed and the baby lived, that it was ok to withhold medical care and allow the baby to die is a fact.
IF you would find that to be true, would it change your mind about him?
Are you going from forum to forum pasting the same response?
D
dmelosi
Guest
Universal health care does, not HAS to include abortion because of the Catholics that do not stand up against it.
J
JDaniel
Guest
Friend:
What if . . . taxes were raised to 100% of gross income? What if, at that point, everything were supplied by the bureaucracy, including food, drink, housing, recreation, etc? As a “matter of life and death,” certainly a 100% contribution to our taxing authorities is justifiable, right?
God bless,
jd
J
JDaniel
Guest
MoM:
Do you think the government collects enough taxes now to fund the effort? Or, do you think taxes will have to be raised? If raised, to what extent, or level? 100%? 99%? 98%?
God bless,
jd
J
JDaniel
Guest
MoM:
So then, people should be forced to work for “free?” If not, then it is for sure that taxes will have to be raised - and not by a mere few percentage points!
There are two diverse things at play here: one is “need” and the other is “greed.” There is no perfect argument to justify the latter, but, there are millions of arguments to justify the former.
God bless,
jd
J
jhigh
Guest
No, you fail to understand the premise of what you are proposing, not to mention the fact that you and others have referred repeatedly to the idea of “free” healthcare.
Kindly explain to me what the rules are for your “free” health care? Who qualifies, and based on what grounds? On what authority does the federal government here in the U.S. provide this health care? You are taking an extremely complex public policy issue and trying to beat people over the head with your own view of the morality of the question - ignoring completely the other side of the issue both from a policy and a moral perspective.
Consider this: better and cheaper care can be provided to individuals through government subsidized vouchers that are then used to purchase private insurance. You’re not talking about providing free health care - you’re proposing that government become the insurer for all Americans that cannot afford insurance. This shifts the risks of my individual health choices from a private insurance company (or from my personal bank account) to the coffers of the taxpayer. That is a vastly different proposition than government providing care.
Additionally, the entirety of your argument is based on a make-believe “right” to health care that does not exist. If it did, then the rich would have a right to free health care that is equal to the right that the poor have, and there would be no one left to pay for it.
Finally, you attempt to besmirch others (and their Catholic faith) by presenting only one side of the moral question: that of taking care of the sick. All Catholics would agree that we are to take care of one another, but you are not asking me to take care of my sick neighbor. You are proposing that I support the government forcing all Americans to pay for health insurance for Americans that cannot afford it. This is a completely different proposition. You also ignore the immorality of teaching entire generations of dependent Americans that nothing is required of them in order for them to reap the benefits of another’s labor.
I understand completely that nothing that anyone says on this forum will change your mind - and I’m ok with that. But please stop using your ignorant and over-simplified view of morality and American governance to question the faith of Catholics that disagree with your conclusions.
J
JDaniel
Guest
MoM:
Interesting. Some years ago (too many to talk about right now!), I lived in Madrid, Spain. Now Spain had what I thought to be a well thought out health care system. If one had money and could pay for the best, say, heart surgeon in Spain, and so, one could procure him/her.
On the other hand, if one did not have money, there was a lottery, so to speak: one would go to the hospital and take one’s chances. Such a person might get a brand new surgeon, recently out of med-school, or, one might get the best heart surgeon in Spain. I can remember talking with my friends, over there, as we discussed how we could somehow “fix” the doctor-lottery so that we would absolutely get the better doctor. Why? Because no one wanted that doctor who had just recently graduated from school! That prospect made everyone fearful, which, I suppose, was justifiable.
Now, why do I bring this up? Well, it’s simple: when one strives to reduce the costs of medical care, one necessarily reduces the quality of that health care. I don’t know about you, but, I have no interest in working for free, or for next to nothing, even if that means that I have done my humanistic part for society. So, to be honest with you, I would have to say that I am quite selfish in that regard. (Besides, I had a family, and had to consider their wants and desires, too.)
Medical care costs money. R & D costs money. Manufacturing to near perfect specifications costs money. Medical grade tools cost money. Quality health providers cost money. And on, and on. Does that mean that their profiting is somehow inhumane?
Now, if the numbers of sick and potentially sick increases, as it has over the years, in a burgeoning population, does it not make sense that that society must increase all of the aforementioned undergirding structures to meet the demand and continue to provide quality medical care? Now, if the best way to accomplish that is to create corporations that can, with good credit, go out and procure the necessary things they need, do you think that such a scheme is practicable, and perhaps, in some way, worthwhile and good?
So if we were to do this, do you think we should also make the lenders of necessary capital work for little or no return, as well as the nice and sweet people in the medical profession might be doing in such a world?
Do you think that there might be at least some risk in lending money to such enterprises - ones that does not charge enough to repay their lenders, much less their employees?
Do you work?
Do you work for free?
Would you consider working for little or nothing, even if you might receive lots of adulation and acclaim?
If you were a Lender, do you think you might wish to replace the money you lent, pay for the overhead of lending and collecting, so that others might benefit from your enterprise?
How will we ensure “proper health-care” in the absence of enticement and incentives? now, all this said, is not to refute you. It is to suggest that perhaps a more encompassing review of the situation should be taken. Perhaps some middle point should be the goal, not an “take-it or leave-it” proposition - which, unfortunately, I think your proposal is.
Do you believe that the Government has enough money to underwrite our medical establishment?
If not: do you believe they can get the money?
How? By crippling other corporations, too? Or, by the annihilation of incentives?
Do you really believe that people will do their very best in the absence of incentives?
Would you wish to be operated on by a surgical staff that really has no desire to do a “proper health-care” job?
To be sure, we’re all here to help one another. I have just as much a problem with the thief, or the price gouger, or the extortionist, or the muscle-bound, head-crushing collector. I am not happy with either extreme. I might be happy somewhere in the middle though.
God bless,
jd
L
LemonAndLime
Guest
The % of taxes per person which go towards the NHS is currently set at 11.8% above basic allowance.MoM:
Do you think the government collects enough taxes now to fund the effort? Or, do you think taxes will have to be raised? If raised, to what extent, or level? 100%? 99%? 98%?
God bless,
jd
Compared to average American % of wages going towards health insurance, which is, for a middle-income family, as much as 22%. (Source: Google).
But I’m not sure why I’m responding to your post as you are being deliberately flippant. This is a forum for mature discussion.
I’m not entirely sure what the accusation of NHS workers having to work for free is coming from either.
C
cargau
Guest
Funny, the one thing that is absent from your discussion is any sort of common sense. You ridicule those who oppose you as being bad Catholics and your intolerance really exposes your lack of clarity.
I dare say, no one opposes health care for any who are in need. So the real issue is how do we accomplish this admirable goal. The so called bad Catholics seem to have some concern about the practicality and workability of a government sponsored program.
I have said before that the government will use such a law (under the guise of moral certitude) to exact control of lives and challenge our freedoms and liberty. Don’t believe that? The HHS just declared that Catholic institutions must provide contraceptive policies to employees in spite of Church teaching.
The next concern is the affordability and sustainability of a program like this. In other words, can the country prosper and grow in the face of such a burden? I suspect you think this is irrelevent. But if businesses and individuals cannot succeed in such an environment, then who exactly is going to be taxed in order to pay for this?
Finally, the lunacy of the bill is in the free abortion/contraception provision. If we don’t reproduce, who is going to pay for the programs proposed? Look at Europe where several countries are dying from less than zero growth.
Common sense is not overly abundant. Yet, we need to provide for those less fortunate in ways that are workable and sustainable. Real health care reform involves making healthcare available and affordable to all. Some of the provisions regarding information collection and desemination is good, but we need tort reform, more competition among competitors and more sensible approaches to appropriate care.
Your thirst for social justice is really quite admirable. Just don’t invite a social upheavel in an effort to solve the problems. Slow down and think!
U
Ubenedictus
Guest
This post best express my views on the US health care program. I love the ‘charity’ in the background but this health care system is not moral and hardly affordable, it is not free. If i was a US bishop i would be looking for a moral ground to ask catholics not to pay tax after such a ridiculous bill is passed. Some things like wars it is hard to know who is right and wrong but killing the unborn all in the name of ‘pro choice’ is just wrong. I’m sorry but this health care program has more disadvantange compare to it advantage. More will die thru abortion and few will be saved thru health care. There shouldnt be arguements for this type of health care.
Ubenedictus
M
Mudgely
Guest
And yet people are in FACT married. Please elaborate.You can’t be married unless you’re a man and a woman. Two guys or two girls can’t be married, regardless of what law a government can come up with. So I’m sorry I support tradition and I’m bigoted or whatever else I might be called, but I’m a Christian.
- Status