Change of heart on socialized medicine

[aspawloski4th]

So what you are saying by becoming a hermit is that you don’t want to help the less fortunate, you just want the rest of us to.

I just want to distance myself from MOST (not all) rest of society, especially Catholics. If I had maoney Id be glad to help her, if my hoe wasnt being foreclosed on presently she could even stay at my home!!! I actually while not having life threatening health problems I do have one similer condition to her, by loose definition. But I grow tired of dealing with people who don’t get it. I am officially since early childhood diagnosed as emotionally impaired. People expecting others to do the impossible exploits my emotional imapirment big time. The answers Iv’e seen to Pathia has goit to be the biggest bunch of insanity I have seen in my life. Including the biggest lack of pragmatism Iv’e ever seen in my life. It makes me sigh.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Actually it is those who are blinded by their own plight who do not see suffering in others and wish to burden those around them with their own personal suffering.

if her plight isn’t taken care of she dies! Are you saying she should be above human nature?

 

[royal_archer]

Well universal healthcare isn’t just a morality issue. Its a human rights issue. Considering all of the things we just take for granted as being part in parcel with living in a society, most are luxuries when compared to healthcare. Health is basic…

A right for one does not create an obligation for another. Otherwise my right to own a weapon would obligate you and others to buy me a new rifle.

Well people in that sort of situation would be one of the ones benefitted. They would no longer be in danger of medical bankruptcy, or in health danger from just not being able to go. People save a lot of money when health expenses are removed…

Taking thousands from someone to give them a few hundred in extra “services” is not helping them.

While it is a common misconception, that there is an invisible army of lazy people who are the ones without healthcare. Most of the people who are without health care are employed. There is also the fact that many who have insurance don’t have insurance that covers their needs. I have an excellent job, I make good money and I work for a major company that is pretty much sailing through the recession. In other words I’m in a good spot. However, I spend quiet a bit on medical costs. I usually have to put off doctor’s visits to save up for my part of the pay. Also most of the issues I have that most impacting to my life aren’t even covered. So that just comes out of pocket. In short, my insurance takes the edge off my bills, but I more or less am the one paying for most of it.

Now thankfully the Lord has provided that I can handle all of those costs but others are not so lucky. I have a co-worker who could only take his wife to catastrophic care for a year because the company messed up his coverage. Another colleague of mine is drowning in debt from the medical bills for his kids, and both of them make more than I do. The issue with medical coverage goes deep into the middle class.

The term may be underemployed. if someone has the capability to be a welder but they spend their time sweeping floors, then they are not employed to their full potential. Yes bills are a burden but if we opened up the flood gates and allowed anyone to get any medical procedure they wanted or a doctor could talk them into, then even the wealthy will not be able to afford it. They are getting closer and closer to the proverbial million dollar pill. (the theoretical pill that costs a million dollars to manufacture but will keep someone alive one more day. but could be repeated indeffinately) We have surpassed that point where everyone can get all of the medical attention available with out hampering our quality of life.

 

[royal_archer]

Intrinsic evil can never be justified by the alleged good it will achieve. However, I can’t see any reason to describe a “government-run medical system” as intrinsically evil. So presumably what you mean is that even though there are great dangers and disadvantages to such a system, there may also be good that can be achieved by this means. That’s reasonable. But your way of putting things is odd and confusing.

Health care is the “good” funding the health care through oppressive means is the “evil”

Or out of the Republicans. Unless you are maintaining the highly dubious proposition that the Republicans are currently a “moral group.”

Let’s call the republicans the less immoral then.

Cutting off funding to abortion agencies (which would certainly be the right thing to do) would simply mean that abortions would be funded privately.

But if we nationalize healthcare we will destroy the private medical industry.

I don’t think a legal case could be made for retroactively prosecuting people for something that was not a crime at the time. The case would have to be made based on some kind of “crimes against humanity” allegation, not on U.S. law. I don’t think it would be a good road to go down.

You may not be able to retroactively throw them in jail but you could use other government features to do that like putting people on the secret no fly list, or ban them from other government “services”

This is not a “good” that could be achieved through an “evil” means. It is an indisputable evil in itself. The Catholic Church, and all other orthodox Christian churches, believes in free will. That means that to “handle” people as “potential criminals” is a grave affront to human dignity.

The “good” would be reducing crime. The “evil” would be to deny them basic human dignity.

Again, this is immoral because it bypasses free will and degrades human dignity.

Yes, again you appear to have issue with the evil that I listed as teh means related to the good end which deals with reduced poverty.

National monitoring of morality is a far worse evil than any supposed evil intrinsic to a “government run health care system.” Or rather, it is precisely the kind of evil I fear *if *the government becomes too powerful.

There are no simple criteria to distinguish “moral” from “less moral” states.

Edwin

Once again, the item you have issue with is the evil means related to the good end of more morality.

 

[aspawloski4th]

A right for one does not create an obligation for another. Otherwise my right to own a weapon would obligate you and others to buy me a new rifle.

You know as well as I do that is not a fair comparison. Not all rights are complete equil. Remeber the right to life is mentioned forst in the 1st amendment while your right to own a gun is later listed in the 2nd amendment. Our founding father put the amendments with the rights listed with them in a certain order for a certain reasio. It wasnn’t hodgepodge willy nilly!

 

[royal_archer]

Why not Nationalized Auto insurance too? That way the DMV can be connected to insurance applications. We could tie it in with health-care so “mentally disturbed” or those with noted alcohol or drug addictions on their health record would have to pay higher premiums for the next 10 years just like a credit report, or just keep them off the road period…
Oh yeah!! Talk about safe roads and fewer accidents… Sounds like the perfect world where individual choices can be replaced by laws based on statistics and proven facts… Devilishly perfect.

now your catching on to the theme of the thread.

 

[aspawloski4th]

now your catching on to the theme of the thread.

Comapring apples and avecados.

 

[royal_archer]

Who on the “left”? The “left” is not monolithic. Give names.

All who support socialized medicine as one of a myriad of leftist issue, let’s start with Obama.

No reason to face something unreal and illogical. “Totalitarianism in some degree” is a contradiction in terms. Totalitarianism means that at least in principle the government has total control over a society and individual freedom is not considered sacred. Nothing about “socialized medicine” implies totalitarianism in any way. It may be a bad move. It may open up the door to certain evils–indeed, that’s a safe thing to say, since *any *policy decision does that. But it’s not totalitarianism. There is nothing to “face” except your inflated rhetoric and refusal to think logically. .

Totalitarianism is complete control. However even in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Socialist Republic people did have some control over their own lives. Hence Totalitarianism is not an absolute. I was attempting to qualify that the nationalization of healthcare was less than a total move to totalitarianism. And for further clarification it is not the provision of health care it is the violation of human rights in order to secure the resources necessary to provide the health care.

No, it’s nothing of the kind. .

The left wants to violate human rights to achieve something accepted as good.

Your eagerness to engage in “abuse” is deeply disturbing.

Humans are sinful. We abuse everything. But virtuous humans try not to do so. Why not pursue virtue? It’s more fun than it looks.

Edwin

I am not eager to enter abuse I am just extrapolating the healthcare discussion in a potential direction based on the assertion that someone holding a view in opposition to those on the left were in power.

By the way I had similar discussion with people who supported human rights violations by Bush such as unwarranted wire taps. In those discussions I asked the question of how the right wingers would feel if the Clintons had access to the powers Bush was seeking.

 

[royal_archer]

Because money doesn’t matter. People matter.

And don’t people who earn money matter?

When the chips are down and human beings are in suffering or danger, private property becomes irrelevant. That is not some kind of modern socialist heresy. It’s the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Edwin

You are basing the arguement on an unsupported assertion. If someone is bleeding I will take my shirt off and wrap the wound if there is nothing else to use. In our society anyone can go to an emergency room with such and emergency and it will be taken care of. The issue is that many choose a lifestyle and make personal decisions that create burdens for others. I doubt that this is what St. Thomas Aquinas was refering to. Also keep in mind that Americans give billions to charity and that is more than enough to help those truly in need.

 

[royal_archer]

You are assuming that the “we” only means groups of individuals acting on their own initiative. I think that’s pretty clearly a misreading of Catholic teaching. The “we” includes “we as a society” as well.

Edwin

Society as charity, yes. Society as government agents taking from the defenseless, no.

 

[royal_archer]

The second statement contradicts the first. You are “hoarding treasure” if you grudge the use of your surplus to supply someone else’s needs.

Edwin

How can you say what is surplus for another?

 

[royal_archer]

Based on what? There is no orthodox theological or moral principle that supports what you are saying.

Private property is not more important than human life. To say that it is constitutes heresy and idolatry of the most vicious and contemptible kind.

Edwin

Have you heard of the Ten Commandments? Though shall not steal. Though shall not covet.

 

[royal_archer]

I sure wish there were more like you on these fora.

How can someone say that money does not matter and then be so intent on taking it?

 

[royal_archer]

Bear in mind that this isn’t what the “left” is saying (well, some on the left may say such things, but no such citations have been presented here so far). It’s what a right-wing person on this forum is saying.

The only point this thread has made is that even if left-wing folks can be trusted with government power, right-wing people like the OP clearly can’t!

Edwin

Some how you missed the point of the first post. I did not post those “options” because I thought they were proper. I posted them because I thought they were very improper and I was trying to make a point.

(Although the shutting off funding for abortion would be a good idea)

 

[royal_archer]

I just want to distance myself from MOST (not all) rest of society, especially Catholics. If I had maoney Id be glad to help her, if my hoe wasnt being foreclosed on presently she could even stay at my home!!! I actually while not having life threatening health problems I do have one similer condition to her, by loose definition. But I grow tired of dealing with people who don’t get it. I am officially since early childhood diagnosed as emotionally impaired. People expecting others to do the impossible exploits my emotional imapirment big time. The answers Iv’e seen to Pathia has goit to be the biggest bunch of insanity I have seen in my life. Including the biggest lack of pragmatism Iv’e ever seen in my life. It makes me sigh.

Why couldn’t she stay with you where you are going to?

You have time and talent. Money is just time and talent in a portable and exchangeable form. Why should the rest of society be forced to give up their time and talent when you are not?

As for the pragmatism. I might agree with some of your views there but not in scope to the thread.

 

[royal_archer]

if her plight isn’t taken care of she dies! Are you saying she should be above human nature?

There are 35-45 million aleged uninsured, this is not a referendum on one person. Are you saying that the rest of us are not dealing with our own personal suffering?

 

[royal_archer]

A right for one does not create an obligation for another. Otherwise my right to own a weapon would obligate you and others to buy me a new rifle.

You know as well as I do that is not a fair comparison. Not all rights are complete equil. Remeber the right to life is mentioned forst in the 1st amendment while your right to own a gun is later listed in the 2nd amendment. Our founding father put the amendments with the rights listed with them in a certain order for a certain reasio. It wasnn’t hodgepodge willy nilly!

"Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Where does it say life?

But playing your game, since Assembly comes before the second ammendment does the government have to pay my expenses to attend a protest?

 

[royal_archer]

157 posts so far and still no one has given me a compelling reason to say that the ends justify the means. when I opened the thread I didn’t believe they did but I was willing to be open minded and put it up for discussion.

 

[rtconstant]

A right for one does not create an obligation for another. Otherwise my right to own a weapon would obligate you and others to buy me a new rifle.

While the constitution allows for the ability to own a weapon it is not a “human right”. It is simply one that Americans can enjoy should they chose.

Taking thousands from someone to give them a few hundred in extra “services” is not helping them.

reverse the figures and you’ll be closer to the truth. People in nations with socialized medicine tend to save more than we do.

The term may be underemployed. if someone has the capability to be a welder but they spend their time sweeping floors, then they are not employed to their full potential. Yes bills are a burden but if we opened up the flood gates and allowed anyone to get any medical procedure they wanted or a doctor could talk them into, then even the wealthy will not be able to afford it. They are getting closer and closer to the proverbial million dollar pill. (the theoretical pill that costs a million dollars to manufacture but will keep someone alive one more day. but could be repeated indeffinately) We have surpassed that point where everyone can get all of the medical attention available with out hampering our quality of life.

And yet millions of people all people in many different nations do it everyday, and have a higher standard of living than we do. This bogey man would have a lot more substance if there were not literal flesh and blood examples in Europe and Asia who show us its not only possible, But practical to cover health needs of their people. It also hurts when our current economic models are getting weaker every day.

 

[rtconstant]

But if we nationalize healthcare we will destroy the private medical industry.

Then why has it not destroyed the private medical industry in Japan or Switzerland? What’s the buzz word? “Work smarter.” The private companies adapt and move forward, or they fail. But then isn’t that what they deserve? I mean after all its not the problem of anyone else that they could not adapt like other companies. No one owes them success. That’s how it works right? That’s the environment your after right?