Donald wins: 'Deplorables' trump Clinton

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
stinkcat_14 said:
It is very consistent with CST.
Click to expand...
Really? I can’t quite reconcile “hey, you’re old, you’re sick, you’re poor, you’re on your own” with everything I learned in 15 years of Catholic education, and my reading in Catholic thought, including any number of encyclicals.
 
Inisfallen and Regular Atheist, your rebuttal posts denying my claims that Hillary is a leftist and a proponent of Socialized Medicine, and that she ran to the left of Sanders (a self-identified Socialist) after she saw that he attracted a sizable portion of her base–the invincibly ignorant, mis-educated American university crowd-- is based primarily on your resurrection of the currently outdated (in America) term, “neo-liberal”. It is reminiscent of an anti-Brexit, U.K./ Canadian Socialist., and that’s not intended as a slur.

We have no chance at intelligent debate because we can’t agree even on the meaning of the most basic of terms, such as leftist and Socialist. Too bad; you have agreeable temperaments, and I would like to disabuse you of your perceptions of American politics.
 
Inisfallen said:
Really? I can’t quite reconcile “hey, you’re old, you’re sick, you’re poor, you’re on your own” with everything I learned in 15 years of Catholic education, and my reading in Catholic thought, including any number of encyclicals.
Click to expand...
  1. I tend to agree BUT
  2. For thousands of years taking care of the elderly or infirm fell to the devout Catholics who took care of thier own families. The American government is not a Catholic vehicle of care.
  3. Just on a personal note, whenever anyone says 12-15 years of Catholic education, it is USUALLY followed by something ridiculous. And/or anti catholic. That is not the case here but just something for you to keep in mind.😉
 
stinkcat_14 said:
Medicaid.
Click to expand...
How is putting most seniors on Medicaid instead of Medicare going to save working taxpayers a lot of money? I suspect that a large proportion of seniors could not afford private insurance without Medicare because they have so many more health problems and pre-existing conditions. Premiums would be exorbitant and unaffordable. And before the Affordable Care Act prohibited insurance companies from denying health insurance to people with pre-existing conditions, most seniors probably wouldn’t have been able to get non-employer provided, private health insurance.
 
Inisfallen said:
Really? I can’t quite reconcile “hey, you’re old, you’re sick, you’re poor, you’re on your own” with everything I learned in 15 years of Catholic education, and my reading in Catholic thought, including any number of encyclicals.
Click to expand...
Nothing in my Catholic education indicated that the federal government was the only solution to that issue.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
  1. For thousands of years taking care of the elderly or infirm fell to the devout Catholics who took care of thier own families. The American government is not a Catholic vehicle of care.
Click to expand...
Considering the high cost of healthcare now, taking care of sick and infirm elderly relatives would be beyond the ability of most families to pay for. Also, most families don’t have stay-at-home women who can take care of elderly relatives, so hiring someone else to do this would be too expensive nowadays.
 
Thorolfr said:
Considering the high cost of healthcare now, taking care of sick and infirm elderly relatives would be beyond the ability of most families to pay for. Also, most families don’t have stay-at-home women who can take care of elderly relatives, so hiring someone else to do this would be too expensive nowadays.
Click to expand...
The issue of lack of skilled workers’ in this area of healthcare is already rearing it’s head and will only get worse as we baby boomers age.The strain on this sector of health care is going to be very challenging.
 
ARSpade said:
Nothing in my Catholic education indicated that the federal government was the only solution to that issue.
Click to expand...
Besides government, what solution do you see? If an elderly person needs caregivers or expensive medications, who is going to pay for that? Do you think that charities or individual families or churches could pay hundreds or thousand of dollars a month for each of millions of people to cover these costs?
 
Thorolfr said:
Considering the high cost of healthcare now, taking care of sick and infirm elderly relatives would be beyond the ability of most families to pay for. Also, most families don’t have stay-at-home women who can take care of elderly relatives, so hiring someone else to do this would be too expensive nowadays.
Click to expand...
Yes I agree. I was just pointing out it isn’t a Catholic system and therefore is not the only way we can meet the obligation to care for these people.

Btw it isn’t always women who stay home. I stay at home and homeschool 5 kids and you can bet someday my MIL will be welcome here.

And I gender identify as a man.😉
 
Thorolfr said:
How is putting most seniors on Medicaid instead of Medicare going to save working taxpayers a lot of money? I suspect that a large proportion of seniors could not afford private insurance without Medicare because they have so many more health problems and pre-existing conditions. Premiums would be exorbitant and unaffordable. And before the Affordable Care Act prohibited insurance companies from denying health insurance to people with pre-existing conditions, most seniors probably wouldn’t have been able to get non-employer provided, private health insurance.
Click to expand...
Most seniors would not go on Medicaid. Medicaid has means testing associated with it. So many people who have assets would have to spend their assets first before becoming eligible for medicaid. That is consistent with the principle of subsidiarity.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
Most seniors would not go on Medicaid. Medicaid has means testing associated with it. So many people who have assets would have to spend their assets first before becoming eligible for medicaid. That is consistent with the principle of subsidiarity.
Click to expand...
This might be too radical an application of “subsidiarity” in our time. Long-term care in the U.S. works just as you advocate, and as I am sure you know. Some can pay it, and some can’t. For those who can’t, Medicaid is the resort.

I have had occasion to talk to a fair number of people about all of that, and I know lawyers who deal with it. One can certainly argue that the elderly should exhaust their own resources before resorting to public financing. But the other side of that is that most older people had no idea what long term care would cost in the early 21st century. Nor did most people realize how distorted the cost is by government programs or how profitable the nursing home industry is. Most peoples’ expectations were that they would work hard for a lifetime, spend some of it for their own care and give the rest to their children.

But Medicaid requires a “financial wipeout”, thus preventing intergenerational transfers that are favored in the Social Encyclicals.

Liars in government persuaded the public that Medicare is “your own money”; that “you saved it”. The reality is that, like Social Security, it’s simply a transfer of funds from one person to another on a current, “pay as you go” basis. I would favor incrementally means testing both SS and Medicare, but not down to the Medicaid qualification level.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
Most seniors would not go on Medicaid. Medicaid has means testing associated with it. So many people who have assets would have to spend their assets first before becoming eligible for medicaid. That is consistent with the principle of subsidiarity.
Click to expand...
This would end up requiring many seniors to live in poverty after they exhaust their own assets on medical care or would require their children to support them.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
Most seniors would not go on Medicaid. Medicaid has means testing associated with it. So many people who have assets would have to spend their assets first before becoming eligible for medicaid. That is consistent with the principle of subsidiarity.
Click to expand...
Adult enrollment in ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion has more than doubled expectations in states across the country – pointing to ballooning costs that threaten budget dollars for priorities like education and infrastructure, according to a report released Wednesday by The Foundation for Government Accountability.

Newly obtained data from 24 of the 29 states with Medicaid expansions show at least 11.5 million able-bodied adults have enrolled. The FGA says adult enrollment for all these states exceeds projections, by an average of 110 percent. Some states have signed up more than four times as many able-bodied adults as they expected would enroll.

“A lot of folks on the left will say that this is a huge sign of success – look at all of these people who need coverage and help,” Nicholas Horton, senior research fellow at FGA and co-author of the report, told FoxNews.com. “My response is that it is not success when you have able-bodied adults who are being trapped in welfare and reducing their incentive to work.”

foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/16/report-medicaid-enrollment-costs-swell-under-obamacare-expansion.html
 
Thorolfr said:
This would end up requiring many seniors to live in poverty after they exhaust their own assets on medical care or would require their children to support them.
Click to expand...
Not hard to accomplish, once you are put into a nursing home. Nursing homes are expensive.
 
KSU said:
Adult enrollment in ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion has more than doubled expectations in states across the country – pointing to ballooning costs that threaten budget dollars for priorities like education and infrastructure, according to a report released Wednesday by The Foundation for Government Accountability.

Newly obtained data from 24 of the 29 states with Medicaid expansions show at least 11.5 million able-bodied adults have enrolled. The FGA says adult enrollment for all these states exceeds projections, by an average of 110 percent. Some states have signed up more than four times as many able-bodied adults as they expected would enroll.

“A lot of folks on the left will say that this is a huge sign of success – look at all of these people who need coverage and help,” Nicholas Horton, senior research fellow at FGA and co-author of the report, told FoxNews.com. “My response is that it is not success when you have able-bodied adults who are being trapped in welfare and reducing their incentive to work.”

foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/16/report-medicaid-enrollment-costs-swell-under-obamacare-expansion.html
Click to expand...
Many of the able bodied adults added in the Medicaid expansion are working but they still can’t afford insurance because they don’t earn enough. They would have to earn less than about 13000 per year to qualify for Medicaid. Leaving them with no healthcare coverage just because they’re poor is inhumane and cruel, especially if they have health problems. It’s also un-Christian.
 
Thorolfr said:
Many of the able bodied adults added in the Medicaid expansion are working but they still can’t afford insurance because they don’t earn enough. They would have to earn less than about 13000 per year to qualify for Medicaid. Leaving them with no healthcare coverage just because they’re poor is inhumane and cruel, especially if they have health problems. It’s also un-Christian.
Click to expand...
How about getting a much better-paying job in order to buy or get employer-generated insurance when the new economy and health care insurance scheme kicks in? No one–able bodied or not-- was denied health care before Obamacare destroyed the best health care system the world had ever seen, so why do you think they will be denied it under the new scheme?

The old system could and would have been kept and improved, but that of course would not have bought-- with my tax money-- a permanent voting block for Democrats. Why pay for something when the government will give it to you for the mere cost of your dignity and vote?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top