Catholics VS Health Care in America: Morally Embarrassing

  • Thread starter Thread starter MindOverMatter2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
=Mary_Fleurdelis;9359090]No. šŸ‘ Not only that, but people are replacing God and the Church with the government. For instance, do you know what some of the members of Catholics for Choice try to proclaim? That the Church will not take care of them if they have lots of kids so it is perfectly moral for them to take birth control. Not a good mentality.
No wonder we see so much cognitive dissonance concerning voting and following the Church. Capitalism can be greedy and unethical, but socialism and reckless spending are never good. 😦
GREAT POST!

That LACK of FAITH in God is a new religion: ā€œMEISM!ā€

Either God IS in charge or

We are.

There is no sharing of this FACT:thumbsup:

God Bless,
pat /PJM
 
Always incorrect? Is it murder if a person forces a mother to abort her child against her wish?
Yes. But not for the reasons by which you define murder, given this particular circumstance.
In your world it seems like the rules will evolve so this killing of a human being can always be justified.
ā€œLegally justifiedā€, and evolution has nothing to do with it; you are continuously ignoring the context in which the legal authorities operate. Also, its not just my world; it is the world you live in. I think its time you realise that.
 
Yes. But not for the reasons by which you define murder, given this particular circumstance.

ā€œLegally justifiedā€, and evolution has nothing to do with it; you are continuously ignoring the context in which the legal authorities operate. Also, its not just my world; it is the world you live in. I think its time you realise that.
Is that your answer? Give up and accept the mass killing of the most innocent human beings?

What is next?
 
Respectfully, I think you have bought into the insurance industry self preserving propaganda.

It is public knowledge that the life expectancy in the US is 50th. Every health care figure that you can find shows that our healthcare system does not work are well as public systems. There is no evidence to the contrary for any modern wealthy nation. In addition to this fact, it is just cheaper to go public. The numbers confirm this as a percentage of GDP, and not just a little bit cheaper, it is a lot cheaper. Higher quality by objective standards, and lower cost by objective measure.

The ONLY reason to keep a private healthcare system intact is to keep on giving profits to insurance companies and other fat cats in our healthcare system.
What specific measures of quality are being used here? Waiting times? Infection rates? Survival rates for specific diseases (e.g., cancer)? Availability of the most effective diagnostic tools? Access to the most effective drugs? Comprehensive coverage of all medically necessary services, e.g., joint replacements, dialysis? Competency of the clinicians?

Is consumer satisfaction at all relevant?

Are demographics, diet, lifestyles, crime rates, etc possible factors in health status?

Could competition/choice of providers actually enhance quality?

Why are American hospitals considered the best in the world?
 
What specific measures of quality are being used here? Waiting times? Infection rates? Survival rates for specific diseases (e.g., cancer)? Availability of the most effective diagnostic tools? Access to the most effective drugs? Comprehensive coverage of all medically necessary services, e.g., joint replacements, dialysis? Competency of the clinicians?

Is consumer satisfaction at all relevant?

Are demographics, diet, lifestyles, crime rates, etc possible factors in health status?

Could competition/choice of providers actually enhance quality?

Why are American hospitals considered the best in the world?
Yes, you are correct that in countries with universal care, that diet and lifestyle issues are more likely to be addressed. In some systems, physicians have incentive plans for reducing the need for medical care from such changes.

The objective measures I refer to are things like infant mortality, longevity… those small measures of healthcare effectiveness.

Since you prefer to bring up the worst characteristics of the worst systems, we should probably balance that comparison to the downside of the private US system. Paying for healthcare is the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the US. More than one third of the US population is under insured, or not insured, and therefore to obtain basic medical care.

I disagree with the position that it is better for a large percentage of the population not to get healthcare, in order for those who are privileged not to stand in line, or wait for an elective procedure. Your point is well taken.
 
I find it morally abhorrent that anyone who calls him or herself a Catholic can defend anything that our president has done in the last several months in regard to healthcare…He is encroaching on our religious freedom…He is telling me that I must pay for things that go against my moral beliefs. I am not telliing a woman wants birth control,that she cannot have access to it…but she should not expect me to pay for it…I have spent many many years in the medical profession, and let me say that I have never seen patients in need turned away from a hospital…or refused emergency care…even when the care is for a baby with a high fever (who could be cared for at home if the parent had been educated in the proper care of their child prior to it’s birth) We can do a lot for the poor that does not entail what is being debated in the courts at this time. I spent many years in a Catholic…(when that meant something)… Hospital…and we cared for the poor, the homeless, the young unwed pregnant girls and their babies. We never used government funds…
The Catholic Hospitals are going by the wayside because we stand for something that our secular culture does not understand…the dignity of the human person from conception to natural death! Please stand up and pray for those who will be hurt when our freedoms are gone!
 
Paying for healthcare is the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the US.
Are you sure that credit card debt, underwater mortgages, the extraordinary high unemployment levels in various States, and the very mediocre GDP growth (less than 2%), as well as all the other repercussions of the 2008 collapse and Obama’s ineffective response, are not also factors in the personal bankruptcy rate?
More than one third of the US population is under insured, or not insured, and therefore to obtain basic medical care.
Are you sure that it’s actually one third? Let’s add up everybody covered by Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, the VA and the DOD military health systems, as well as separate individual State health programs. Who would make up the one third? Illegals?

And how does one explain that, pre-Obama, 85% of the country was happy with the health care system.

One third doesn’t seem right. It may be in the definition of underinsured or uninsured. For example, how long have the people gone without insurance (a month, 6 months, a year or more)?

Also, with respect to the underinsured, what if simplified health insurance were available, without all the additional mandates which individual State legislatures (dominated by lawyers and special interest providers) have created? More people would then be able to afford coverage. Unless of course Obamacare kicks in at the federal level.

I should add that simplified health insurance would not be stingy - it would cover basic hospital/outpatient/physician services.
 
Who would make up the one third? Illegals?
Perhaps I should have also mentioned, as part of the ā€œuninsuredā€, folks who can afford to pay for health insurance but choose not to. Maybe these are the ones (or some of the ones) who are going bankrupt.

Then again, there are folks who are rich enough to pay for their own health care in cash.

In any case, I’m not convinced that a universal government health care system is necessary.
 
The objective measures I refer to are things like infant mortality, longevity… those small measures of healthcare effectiveness.
A lot of Americans are very ā€œcavalierā€ about babies. Just look at our abortion rates. And at the rates of drug addiction, alcohol consumption, and STDs among pregnant moms.

And this, despite the fact that pre-natal and post-natal care is widely available for the poor.

Secondly, the US has high rates of murder, unhealthy lifestyles, etc.

And, finally, the US has an unusual demographic mix, with a large and growing population of illegal immigrants from countries where health care is grossly inadequate or even non-existent.

All of this needs to be factored into an assessment of the adequacy of our health care system.

I agree the country has problems. But can they be addressed without curtailing too much of our individual freedoms? As Hamlet might say, that is the question.
 
A lot of Americans are very ā€œcavalierā€ about babies. Just look at our abortion rates. And at the rates of drug addiction, alcohol consumption, and STDs among pregnant moms.

And this, despite the fact that pre-natal and post-natal care is widely available for the poor.

Secondly, the US has high rates of murder, unhealthy lifestyles, etc.

And, finally, the US has an unusual demographic mix, with a large and growing population of illegal immigrants from countries where health care is grossly inadequate or even non-existent.

All of this needs to be factored into an assessment of the adequacy of our health care system.

I agree the country has problems. But can they be addressed without curtailing too much of our individual freedoms? As Hamlet might say, that is the question.
You make some good points, levinas. I know of a lot of people who go to Belize, Cuba, and Mexico for treatments that are better and certaionlyh chaper thatn some in the US. And yes, there are some countires that have pathetic health care.

And yes, our Country is becoming more of a mix, something we used to be proud of, calling ourselves a ā€œmelting potā€ and alleging to draw strength from that. And yet those who come here ought to be here legally. One also wonders what one would do if they were in the shoes, if they had any, (have you been to rural parts of 3rd world counties? I have) of some of the people who come here in desparation. You may have not even a hint of a concept of how some people live. If you respected yourself and loved your family and had courage, you might try to make it to and live in the place so blown into heavenly proportions as ours is. I don’t know. The vast majority don’t, but imagine how desperate you have to be to risk your life or that of your whole family. Or maybe you would take them out on a leaky raft in hurricane season for fun.

But I wholeheartedly agree with you that there is much rto be desired in the way many of us here live our lives from a health perspective. Here, even the junk food chains advertise their ā€œhealthyā€ products, oil companies tout how they help the wolrd while they ruin land and lives, as does, say Coca Cola, and we happily eat gmo food while in other countries people are awake enought to ban them or sue Monsanto, the devil incarnate, by the millions for damage they have caused. And the glam of advertising neglects to state that with the decline of the middle class nearly 25% of American children are living in poverty. It is unprecedented. And with the privatization of prisons, and their lobbying to make more things illegal, we have the highest proportional prison population of any country.

We also feed our kids, or did, ā€œpink slime.ā€ for meat, and eatthings others woouldn’t put in their mouths. Soda and sugar consumption has resulted in an explosoion of diabetes in children and adults. And a whole lot of that is personal responsibility. And maturity. Both of those seem to be in short supply in our Nation. Advertising doesn’t help. Neither does Hollywood. And neithere do the statistics of our own Natonal institutes that demonstrate our slide from first to about 29th or lower on seveeral points of social health, especially education. So in that atmosphere of encouragement to be superficial, accept poison as food, hold up physical beauty and riches as a standard over other attributes, we m,ight have a ways to go. Usualy in history such things are eventually remedied by collapse. Perhaps Americans would rather soon live without toilet paper than get off their duffs and do something to fix ourselves and not someone else. But perhaps Americans are interested in discovering what the rest of the world lives like, and will do so by allowing what we have built here just decay out of existence? Despite many excellent advances, it seems we’ve made a good start in that direction. Thank you, Democlicans and Republicrats.
 
Is that your answer? Give up and accept the mass killing of the most innocent human beings?

What is next?
I have given you the answer. ā€œEvangeliseā€, if you are really have a problem with societies view on life. If embryos are as innocent as you say, then their souls are safe either way.

Legal Action will never work because the legal system doesn’t have the epistemological authority to say that an embryo is a person, and simply asserting that people are killing human beings will not convince anybody.

The problem exists because people have different perceptions on what it means for something to be a person. Until you challenge that issue you will just be wasting time and money depriving people of better health care for no good reason.
 
Are you sure that credit card debt, underwater mortgages, the extraordinary high unemployment levels in various States, and the very mediocre GDP growth (less than 2%), as well as all the other repercussions of the 2008 collapse and Obama’s ineffective response, are not also factors in the personal bankruptcy rate?

Are you sure that it’s actually one third? Let’s add up everybody covered by Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, the VA and the DOD military health systems, as well as separate individual State health programs. Who would make up the one third? Illegals?

And how does one explain that, pre-Obama, 85% of the country was happy with the health care system.

One third doesn’t seem right. It may be in the definition of underinsured or uninsured. For example, how long have the people gone without insurance (a month, 6 months, a year or more)?

Also, with respect to the underinsured, what if simplified health insurance were available, without all the additional mandates which individual State legislatures (dominated by lawyers and special interest providers) have created? More people would then be able to afford coverage. Unless of course Obamacare kicks in at the federal level.

I should add that simplified health insurance would not be stingy - it would cover basic hospital/outpatient/physician services.
The bottom line is that we have tens of millions… yes tens of millions of uninsured people. A change in our system would insure everyone, and provide a higher standard of care. This is not disputable. We can look at countries which are doing it.

The price would be insurance company profits.

It really is as simple as that, in principle.

The implementation would require real leadership, acumen, and expertise to get it right. Fortunately, we have the example of many countries to look at. We can take ideas from the best, and reject the ideas which are not working. The end result could be, insurance for everyone, at a higher standard of care, and at a lower cost.
 
… imagine how desperate you have to be to risk your life or that of your whole family.
Hopefully, as a country, we can reach consensus on addressing the needs of people throughout the world.

And first and foremost we must not live obliviously.

And it may not be politically correct to say this but I think religious conversion is the only real solution (both our own conversion and the conversion of the whole world). But conversion cannot be coerced. The Holy Spirit descends constantly (spiritually it’s raining all the time) - pray that we put down our umbrellas.
 
I have given you the answer. ā€œEvangeliseā€, if you are really have a problem with societies view on life. If embryos are as innocent as you say, then their souls are safe either way.

Legal Action will never work because the legal system doesn’t have the epistemological authority to say that an embryo is a person, and simply asserting that people are killing human beings will not convince anybody.

The problem exists because people have different perceptions on what it means for something to be a person. Until you challenge that issue you will just be wasting time and money depriving people of better health care for no good reason.
Of course, ā€œEvangeliseā€. That is not the single answer. According to your statement that ā€œif embryos are as innocent as you say, then their souls are safe either way.ā€ (you say if?) In your world does that mean that if it were legal, it would be ok to kill any sinless person (who’s soul is safe either way) because they are a bothersome or inconvenient to their lifestyle?

I agree that the issue of who is a person needs to be challenged. But your suggestion is to allow anything as long as it is legal. As proven since the killing of the most innocent has become legal…more and more people accept it because it is legal. It is not as important to them because so many such as yourself are saying it is ā€œnot as importantā€ because it is legal.
 
Hopefully, as a country, we can reach consensus on addressing the needs of people throughout the world.

And first and foremost we must not live obliviously.

And it may not be politically correct to say this but I think religious conversion is the only real solution (both our own conversion and the conversion of the whole world). But conversion cannot be coerced. The Holy Spirit descends constantly (spiritually it’s raining all the time) - pray that we put down our umbrellas.
And neither can the insights that transcend religion be coerced. Truth cannot be stated, only pointed to. But when the ā€œmind umbrellaā€ is put down, it can be discovered that this is always already the ā€œotherā€ world.
 
Of course, ā€œEvangeliseā€. That is not the single answer.
It is the only practical answer. If you can convince people that abortion is objectively morally wrong and that an embryo is a person, then hopefully those people will not go to abortion clinics.
…does that mean that if it were legal, it would be ok to kill any sinless person (who’s soul is safe either way) because they are a bothersome or inconvenient to their lifestyle?
Its not a matter of right and wrong, but rather its a matter of what authority a secular democracy has when defining values and making them law. You seem to be ignoring the fact that you live in a secular democracy and that therefore there is epistemological limitations insofar as making laws are concerned. If people in general thought that it would be practically beneficial to the prolonged sustenance of society, then I am sure that there would be under-classes whose lives are legally expendable; such is evident today given the fact that there are people living in poverty and homelessness and lack access to the very best health care in some of the richest countries in the world. The question of whether it goes against an objective moral law is besides the point, since epistemologically speaking secular legal entities have no objective access to objective moral law in an epistemological or logical sense. They only have access to pragmatic and utilitarian considerations in the context of legality.

The legal expandability of human lives has happened before, it happens today, and it will always happen.
I agree that the issue of who is a person needs to be challenged. But your suggestion is to allow anything as long as it is legal. As proven since the killing of the most innocent has become legal…more and more people accept it because it is legal. It is not as important to them because so many such as yourself are saying it is ā€œnot as importantā€ because it is legal.
I haven’t made any such suggestions. I am merely pointing out the fact of our situation. If laws are not determined by objective knowledge of moral truth sent by God, then secular laws are always going to be based upon pragmatic and utilitarian reasoning in the context of what any given society is attempting to achieve in terms of survival and material success.

If it could be determined pragmatically that abortion has no benefit to society and is also destroying society in the context of survival and material success, then it would be illegal.
 
It is the only practical answer. If you can convince people that abortion is objectively morally wrong and that an embryo is a person, then hopefully those people will not go to abortion clinics.

Its not a matter of right and wrong, but rather its a matter of what authority a secular democracy has when defining values and making them law. You seem to be ignoring the fact that you live in a secular democracy and that therefore there is epistemological limitations insofar as making laws are concerned. If people in general thought that it would be practically beneficial to the prolonged sustenance of society, then I am sure that there would be under-classes whose lives are legally expendable; such is evident today given the fact that there are people living in poverty and homelessness and lack access to the very best health care in some of the richest countries in the world. The question of whether it goes against an objective moral law is besides the point, since epistemologically speaking secular legal entities have no objective access to objective moral law in an epistemological or logical sense. They only have access to pragmatic and utilitarian considerations in the context of legality.

The legal expandability of human lives has happened before, it happens today, and it will always happen.

I haven’t made any such suggestions. I am merely pointing out the fact of our situation. If laws are not determined by objective knowledge of moral truth sent by God, then secular laws are always going to be based upon pragmatic and utilitarian reasoning in the context of what any given society is attempting to achieve in terms of survival and material success.

If it could be determined pragmatically that abortion has no benefit to society and is also destroying society in the context of survival and material success, then it would be illegal.
I couldn’t disagree more.
I sincerely believe it is legal because so many people have 1 selfish special interest and will disregard life as long as their special interest is sided with. IF their special interest is sided with, they will make all kinds of excuses and go to great lengths with arguments that ease their conscience so they can vote for their party over obvious moral right and wrong.
 
I mentioned Medicare, Medicaid, etc to show that the US is already spending trillions of dollars (over the 5 year budget window) on health care for low-income populations.

You seemed to be concerned that the poor were getting short shrift.

I don’t have a problem with a safety net.

But a vast, universal, single payer government program is unnecessary. A decentralized, private sector approach is the best way to finance health care for most Americans. It gives people the flexibility they need to craft their own plans. And, by promoting competition in the marketplace, it will enhance quality and bend the cost curve.

N.B. Usually we discuss metaphysics, epistemology, sometimes phenomenology and cognitive science, even theology, on this subforum. That’s why I may have caviled a bit about discussing health care systems. But, on second thought, the topic has profound philosophical resonance.
Many Americans think that something like the British NHS would work here. But Britain is different country, and the lives of its citizens are more closely controlled by the government than they were in many countries behind the Iron curtain were.
 
I couldn’t disagree more.
I sincerely believe it is legal because so many people have 1 selfish special interest and will disregard life as long as their special interest is sided with. IF their special interest is sided with, they will make all kinds of excuses and go to great lengths with arguments that ease their conscience so they can vote for their party over obvious moral right and wrong.
The only thing that is evident from this discussion is that you are unable to accept or understand how the legal system works. It is also evident that you are unable to accept or understand that what is supposedly obvious to you is not necessarily evident to everyone else.

You have not produce one rational argument that supports your position or can be justified in a legal context. You are just dictating your beliefs, and ignoring everybody else.

Its no wonder that Christianity is losing the battle.
 
The only thing that is evident from this discussion is that you are unable to accept or understand how the legal system works. It is also evident that you are unable to accept or understand that what is supposedly obvious to you is not necessarily evident to everyone else.

You have not produce one rational argument that supports your position or can be justified in a legal context. You are just dictating your beliefs, and ignoring everybody else.

Its no wonder that Christianity is losing the battle.
I understand perfectly.

Christianity is losing their battle when so many vote their perceived self interest over morality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top