Catholics VS Health Care in America: Morally Embarrassing

  • Thread starter Thread starter MindOverMatter2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, my location is more of a satirical joke about how to non-Europeans my country is labelled as “socialist”. I got that fed up of denying that we are to the point where I thought I should just accept the label and “reclaim” it.
If your government keeps the people dependent upon it through social programs,such as the nationalized health care system,then it is socialist. That is what defines a socialist government. The fact that private businesses and capitalism are prominent in the country does not mean that the government is not socialist.
 
If your government keeps the people dependent upon it through social programs,such as the nationalized health care system,then it is socialist. That is what defines a socialist government. The fact that private businesses and capitalism are prominent in the country does not mean that the government is not socialist.
I’m not dependent on the NHS. I can buy some private insurance or go to a private hospital/doctor tomorrow if I want to.
 
Universal health care does, not HAS to include abortion because of the Catholics that do not stand up against it.
So…
  1. What do you base that on, since we’ve never had universal health care in the United States so as to demonstrate the truth of this?
  2. Aren’t you acknowledging that if we did have Catholics to stand up against abortion that universal health care could exist without it?
 
And yet people are in FACT married. Please elaborate.
I’ll try. It’s not that members of the same gender can’t enter into a civil contract called a “marriage.” But from the Catholic standpoint, where marriage is a sacrament, two members can’t enter into a marriage, not because it is forbidden, but because it is impossible. The grace of the sacrament does not obtain if two of the same gender attempt it.
 
So you are saying we have a moral obligation to pay taxes for free health care. Using that logic, don’t we have a moral obligation to pay taxes for free food, clothing, and housing? And if everyone has a right to free health care then doesn’t everyone have a right to free food, clothing and housing?

I say we have a moral obligation to donate to charities that care for the poor and the sick. The government should not be in the charity business.
Actually, yes. The more successful democracies, in terms of social welfare by every measure do that. The US is at the very bottom in terms of social success no matter how it’s measured: infant mortality, educational achievement, child welfare, social mobility, access to healthcare, percentage of people imprisoned, murder rate, crime rate, violent crime rate… Take your pick. We are failing compared to other modern tech states.

The issue has a direct relationship to income gap, apparently. Even the rich suffer in our society compared to others, which is counter intuitive, yet true. They do worse in these measures than the rich in Japan or Sweden, for example. There is a direct relationship for EVERY modern country, along a straight line, if you graph it.

So, yes. It does make sense to redistribute wealth by every measure anyone has come up with, other than greed. This is not merely a theoretical statement, but supported by fact.

If the goal is individual aggrandizement for the few, then our system works well. If the goal is more utilitarian, then we need some changes which are built into the democracies which were framed after ours after ww2. They looked at ours and improved upon the concept.
 
The first Christian community was the Catholic Church,and they shared goods in common voluntarily because they were closely bound together by their strong faith and evangelical mission and by persecution. Christian charity is not done through government control over people’s property and private affairs.
Christian charity** is done **through government control over people’s property and private affairs in many countries even when not all - or even none - of the members of the government are Christians!
 
Christian charity** is done **through government control over people’s property and private affairs in many countries even when not all - or even none - of the members of the government are Christians!
Christain charity is always an act of love that comes from the heart. What you are describing is a redistribution of wealth that is designed to garner votes. Get real!
 
I found the whole Stupak Amendment double-cross to ram the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” down the throats of the Pro-Life movement morally embarrassing, but that’s just me.
 
Actually, yes. The more successful democracies, in terms of social welfare by every measure do that. The US is at the very bottom in terms of social success no matter how it’s measured: infant mortality, educational achievement, child welfare, social mobility, access to healthcare, percentage of people imprisoned, murder rate, crime rate, violent crime rate… Take your pick. We are failing compared to other modern tech states.
Mudge:

All of your examples, above, are clearly contestable. You can peruse the internet to discover that there are mitigating reasons why our numbers seem to show higher. The most important of which is: that we are much more prone to delivering correct data to the public.
The issue has a direct relationship to income gap, apparently. Even the rich suffer in our society compared to others, which is counter intuitive, yet true. They do worse in these measures than the rich in Japan or Sweden, for example. There is a direct relationship for EVERY modern country, along a straight line, if you graph it.
Interesting. Do you have a source for this analysis?
So, yes. It does make sense to redistribute wealth by every measure anyone has come up with, other than greed. This is not merely a theoretical statement, but supported by fact.
I’m sorry, but, that is the most absurd conclusion I have heard in a long time! :eek:
If the goal is individual aggrandizement for the few, then our system works well. If the goal is more utilitarian, then we need some changes which are built into the democracies which were framed after ours after ww2. They looked at ours and improved upon the concept.
I can only assume that you are a very young person, who hasn’t had time enough to think this through.

God bless,
jd
 
Let me just say that - as a Canadian - I would never in a thousand years trade our healthcare system for America’s, and ours isn’t even as good as Scandinavia’s.

The idea that a government would let someone die (or otherwise force them into poverty) because they can not afford a life-saving treatment is repugnant to me. So is the notion that someone can buy their way to the head of the healthcare queue because they had the good fortune to be wealthy.

And, simply put, I consider anyone opposed to universal healthcare highly suspect.

“Maybe some Poors die but at least my taxes are low!”
 
Let me just say that - as a Canadian - I would never in a thousand years trade our healthcare system for America’s, and ours isn’t even as good as Scandinavia’s.

The idea that a government would let someone die (or otherwise force them into poverty) because they can not afford a life-saving treatment is repugnant to me. So is the notion that someone can buy their way to the head of the healthcare queue because they had the good fortune to be wealthy.

And, simply put, I consider anyone opposed to universal healthcare highly suspect.

“Maybe some Poors die but at least my taxes are low!”
Welcome to the forum - with an excellent post! 🙂
 
Christian charity** is done **through government control over people’s property and private affairs in many countries even when not all - or even none - of the members of the government are Christians!
Christain charity is always an act of love that comes from the heart. What you are describing is a redistribution of wealth that is designed to garner votes. Get real!
Your post is a feeble excuse for doing nothing to help the needy… 🤷
 
Let me just say that - as a Canadian - I would never in a thousand years trade our healthcare system for America’s, and ours isn’t even as good as Scandinavia’s.

The idea that a government would let someone die (or otherwise force them into poverty) because they can not afford a life-saving treatment is repugnant to me. So is the notion that someone can buy their way to the head of the healthcare queue because they had the good fortune to be wealthy.

And, simply put, I consider anyone opposed to universal healthcare highly suspect.

“Maybe some Poors die but at least my taxes are low!”
78 pages of what is REALLY WRONG WITH Obamacare here:

heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/28485.pdf

There is an audio track that I just heard that describes a meeting in Washington DC on or about shortly before 11/22/2011 that describes this situation. Has not, apparently, been made public.

Here is a transcript; draw your own conclusions:

I just returned from Washington, DC, where we were reading over what the Obama health care plan would be for advanced neurosurgery for patients over 70, which we all found quite disturbing. As our population gets older, the majority of our patients are getting over 70. They’ll require stroke therapy, aneurysm therapy, and basically what the document stated is that if you’re over 70 and you come into an emergency room… if you’re on government-supported health care, you’ll get “comfort care”.

ML: Wait a minute… what’s the source for this?

Jeff: This is Obama’s new health care plan for advanced neurosurgical care.

ML: And who issued this? HHS?

Jeff: Yes. And basically they don’t call them patients, they call them units. And instead of, they call it “ethics panels” or “ethics committees”, would get together and meet and decide where the money would go for hospitals, and basically for patients over 70 years of age, that advanced neurosurgical care was not generally indicated.

ML: So it’s generally going to be denied?

Jeff: Yes, absolutely… If someone comes in at 70 years of age with a bleed in their brain, I can promise you I’m not going to get a bunch of administrators together on an ethics panel at 2 in the morning to decide that I’m OK to do surgery.

ML: Is this published somewhere where the general public could get a hold of it?

Jeff: Not yet.

ML: So this was just discussed with your community of neurosurgeons?

Jeff: Yes, the AANS [Ed: the American Association of Neurological Surgeons] and the Congress of Neurosurgeons, because everybody knows that cuts are coming in Medicare and medical reimbursement. And we’re the most expensive out of all the fields in medicine. And we’re the smallest field. But at two, three, four in the morning, we’re the ones in the operating room. And we have to wait for an ethics panel to convene, which are not made of physicians — they’re made of administrators. To decide whether a patient should receive our care.

ML: So Sarah Palin was right. We’re going to have these “death panels”, aren’t we?

Jeff: Oh, absolutely. I’m German by heritage, and I’ve read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, and — basically, they don’t call them patients, they call them units. And if you’re a unit above a certain age, you get comfort care instead of advanced neurosurgical intervention.

ML: You went to a seminar in Washington, DC?

Jeff: Yes. Where a few of my former partners, two of them, have gone to work… one for the Veteran’s Administration and one for the Congress of Neurosurgeons out of DC.

ML: And this information is based, you’re certain, on representations and information provided by HHS and other government officials?

Jeff: Yep.

ML: And when will the rest of us become aware of it? After the [presidential] election?

Jeff: Probably. I mean, there’s so many things that the government keeps under control that are used — things called H.U.D. devices — humanitarian use devices that we’re allowed to use now because they haven’t undergone full FDA approval. And they’re used in surgery because people know it’s the right thing to do. But the government can step in at any time, like they did two months ago with a device, and say, ‘this device hasn’t met what we want’ and there’s no exact criteria, and can therefore take it away from us.

ML: And the people telling you what to do — they don’t know how to make a pencil, do they?

Jeff: Exactly. That’s what I’m saying. You know, we always joke around — ‘it’s not brain surgery’ — but I did nine years after medical school, I’ve been in training ten years, and now I have people who don’t know a thing about what I’m doing telling me when I can and can’t operate.
 
There is an audio track that I just heard that describes a meeting in Washington DC on or about shortly before 11/22/2011 that describes this situation. Has not, apparently, been made public.

Here is a transcript; draw your own conclusions:
I suppose my question is, how is the healthcare system currently administered?
Namely, would an ObamaCare patient in 2013 have health insurance at all if ObamaCare wasn’t an option?

There seems to be some dissonance here:
We don’t want universal healthcare, but unless ObamaCare is true UHC, we don’t want that either. Which is to say, “We’re not going to fully-fund universal healthcare - we’re going to force them to compromise with ObamaCare - but we’re also going to use the rationing under the ObamaCare as evidence of its failure.”

It sounds to me like certain special interests prefer the status quo. So again, my question is this: Would that elderly person receiving comfort care in 2013 be receiving any care at all right now?
 
I suppose my question is, how is the healthcare system currently administered?
Namely, would an ObamaCare patient in 2013 have health insurance at all if ObamaCare wasn’t an option?

There seems to be some dissonance here:
We don’t want universal healthcare, but unless ObamaCare is true UHC, we don’t want that either. Which is to say, “We’re not going to fully-fund universal healthcare - we’re going to force them to compromise with ObamaCare - but we’re also going to use the rationing under the ObamaCare as evidence of its failure.”

It sounds to me like certain special interests prefer the status quo. So again, my question is this: Would that elderly person receiving comfort care in 2013 be receiving any care at all right now?
Sorry, I can’t follow what it is you are trying to say.

Currently, medical care is a dog’s breakfast of private and government. The government determines reimbursements via the HCFA agency. But, in general, if I need medical care, I go to the doctor or hospital and they treat me. It’s paid for by my presenting a membership card in one or more medical insurance plans. If I have no money, then hospitals have to absorb it.

There is no reason for those kinds of either/or situations.

Where I live there are a lot of Amish/Mennonite people and they pay cash.

Personally, I would prefer to purchase my own HSA policy. I have bought my own medical insurance for 20+ years. But have been denied the benefits of an HSA policy because of deliberate Federal meddling [thank you, Senator Ted Kennedy, RIP] and restrictive state laws.

There is no reason why individuals should be denied buying their own medical insurance of choice, AND be permitted to take a tax deduction for the full amount. AND, for people below a certain income, to get a full tax credit for that. AND, for people with disabling chronic conditions to be permitted to participate in private insurance paid for by charitable fund.

In other words, absolutely no reason for government “administrators” … bureaucrats … with no medical training … to get involved in medical decisions.
 
Actually, yes. The more successful democracies, in terms of social welfare by every measure do that. The US is at the very bottom in terms of social success no matter how it’s measured: infant mortality, educational achievement, child welfare, social mobility, access to healthcare, percentage of people imprisoned, murder rate, crime rate, violent crime rate… Take your pick. We are failing compared to other modern tech states.

The issue has a direct relationship to income gap, apparently. Even the rich suffer in our society compared to others, which is counter intuitive, yet true. They do worse in these measures than the rich in Japan or Sweden, for example. There is a direct relationship for EVERY modern country, along a straight line, if you graph it.

So, yes. It does make sense to redistribute wealth by every measure anyone has come up with, other than greed. This is not merely a theoretical statement, but supported by fact.

If the goal is individual aggrandizement for the few, then our system works well. If the goal is more utilitarian, then we need some changes which are built into the democracies which were framed after ours after ww2. They looked at ours and improved upon the concept.
A lot of the accusations against the United States are based on carefully cherry-picked definitions.

For example, “infant mortality” … in the United States, premature babies are given extraordinary care. The problem occurs when some infants are born so early or with such hugely incapacitating ailments that survival is virtually impossible. So, we have high infant mortality. In other places, the death of newborns is not recorded at all. They do not even reach the status of “infant”.

In the United States, patients have better cancer outcomes than in other countries. And patients in the United States have better access to specialists than in other countries. And generally better access to the latest devices such as MRI’s. And those metrics are not included in the overall comparative data.

What you will find is that there are essential elements of statistical analysis that are ignored. Some because it would be politically incorrect. Or “insensitive”. Some because they make the United States look good … and the people who write the popular articles don’t want the United States to look good.

So before people start making comparisons, it is important to take a close look at the details of what is involved in each of the metrics.

The details are very important. And if someone throws out generalized global statements and doesn’t have the details, then there is an element of dishonesty involved.
 
Sorry, I can’t follow what it is you are trying to say.
Sorry –

What I meant was it sounded a lot like the whole Death Panel scare from 2010 or whenever, the idea that Obama wants have your grandma’s life decided-on by committee.

My question is - even if that “comfort care” thing were true - would the 70+ year old person still be better off under ObamaCare than the hodge-podge system you have now? Would that have insurance at all, if they didn’t have ObamaCare?
 
Sorry –

What I meant was it sounded a lot like the whole Death Panel scare from 2010 or whenever, the idea that Obama wants have your grandma’s life decided-on by committee.

My question is - even if that “comfort care” thing were true - would the 70+ year old person still be better off under ObamaCare than the hodge-podge system you have now? Would that have insurance at all, if they didn’t have ObamaCare?
Where are you from?

People older than 70 now get all kinds of great care.
 
Where are you from?

People older than 70 now get all kinds of great care.
Canada. We do well with geriatric care here, too, but I remember the whole “death panel” thing being a right wing meme during the healthcare debates, and that’s what the “comfort care” thing sounds like.

Obama wants to kill your grandma! etc etc.
 
Canada. We do well with geriatric care here, too, but I remember the whole “death panel” thing being a right wing meme during the healthcare debates, and that’s what the “comfort care” thing sounds like.

Obama wants to kill your grandma! etc etc.
👍 Scaremongering is one of the favourite tricks to defend the status quo…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top