Helping Socialists?

[markomalley]

But it is your definition that I am illuminating, not mine. If you don’t agree, then it is up to you to show why building a bike path is fundamentally different than providing health care, as far as either of them being a redistribution of wealth. I have read through your clarification of what you mean by redistribution, and it seems to apply equally well to the bike path. It is provided from taxes, and it goes to benefit people identified by a group (bike riders). You then go on to say that in-kind benefits must be those that the individual would normally bear if they wanted that benefit. Well, what about a town that has a private golf course that users are expected to pay for if they want to golf. Now suppose that the town decides to build a highly-subsidized public golf course. Is that redistribution? It takes a benefits that people were paying for individually and makes them available at a reduced rate to golfers. I seems that focussing on health care is quite arbitrary. So you tell me on what basis health care is redistribution and a golf course is not.

I think that I did an adequate job explaining it, so I will only add this:

The analogue would be if the government was to give you a bike to use on this trail, a set of clubs to use on the golf course, or a car to drive on the road.

 

[Abu]

hammerbaz
…all should have the right to free state health care. that should be a human right, and it is in britain, and im proud of it.

False.
If it was a human right then the Church would have defined it so. When you are prepared to reason with faith you might then be able to appreciate the facts (post #33):
From Centesimus Annus (John Paul II, 1991):
“48. Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State [Welfare State] are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.100

“By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.”

You believe that the NHS is wonderful, flawed as it most certainly is and economically unsupportable – it is not worth holding it up as a model.

Some comments may be helpful.
Dr Goodman concludes:
“But the failures of socialized medicine are evident in every country that implements it, and there is no reason to believe that a single-payer system in the United States would be any different. Advocates of national health insurance would do well to look at how countries like Germany, Sweden, and Australia are choosing free-market reforms to alleviate the problems of their national health systems. Through painful experience, many of the countries that once heralded the benefits of government control have learned that the best remedy for their countries’ health care crises is not increasing government power, but increasing patient power instead.115”
Note
115. Task Force Report, An Agenda for Solving America’s Health Care Crisis, National Center for Policy Analysis, Policy Report no. 151, May 1990; and Goodman and Musgrave, Patient Power (Washington: Cato Institute, 1992).

Dr William Luckey states of the U.S.A.:
“We have the best medical financing system in the world. We have many medical insurance companies, including one that will insure you for $10 per day, which advertises on television. Our emergency rooms are required by law to take anyone who comes in, and our ambulances are required to take anyone who wants to go. This includes people who have colds, flu, a “boo-boo,” regardless of their ability to pay, and the cost for this is foisted on the paying patients of the hospital, unknown to them. The hospital is not required to cure the nonpaying patient who is seriously ill or injured, but must get them at least to where they are stabilized.
[Dr. William R. Luckey is Professor of Political Science and Economics at Christendom College, Front Royal, Virginia].
[See http://www.drwilliamluckey.com/index.cfm/Current-Events ]

 

[Abu]

Markomalley
It should be pointed out as a caveat to your post that it all must be bound by Christian charity on the part of all, else any system will become corrupt. Recall the condition of the working man back in the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th and early 20th century. If the wealthy capitalist class is not constrained by Christian virtue, some type of protections are needed to constrain them and to “encourage” them to adopt Christian virtue in the running of their businesses.

Hence (post #44): “That’s the Catholic way: free enterprise, sound laws, and the morals that maketh the man”; and (post #32): “That’s why we have laws to seek and punish those who steal, cheat, swindle.” And to ensure competition.

It is only the development of the economic laws of cause and effect by the Catholic Late Scholastics based on faith and reason which enabled the enrichment of untold millions from the poverty before the enterprises that came with the “Industrial Revolution”. As with any new developments, unfortunately laws can be slow to follow, especially where reason and faith are confused or lacking.

Wealth can be distributed only after it is produced.

Unfortunately, with the rampant relativism and secularism in society and politics, the “protections” whether constraining investors, entrepreneurs, or employees will be imperfect, as with those nations that manipulate exchange rates to their advantage.

 

[JimG]

Wealth can be distributed only after it is produced.

That sentence pretty much sums it up.

There seems to be a growing belief that all would be well if only the rich are required to give up more of their wealth to the government for redistribution. But even if the rich give all their money to the government, it will not be sufficient to support our existing massive entitlement programs.

The fact is, we are running out of other people’s money, and no amount of increased taxation can increase the supply of other people’s money sufficiently to support those programs indefinitely. The money is running out, and when people begin to realize that it cannot continue, the cries of blame the rich will increasingly turn to cries of class warfare. The French revolutionaries, the Soviet revolutionaries, the Cuban revolutionaries—none of them made the poor rich, they simply bankrupted their countries.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I was driving someplace and listening to the radio and a caller said that if we had an open free market competition for health care, the way we do for hotels and air fares, then you would see lab tests and doctor visits for petty cash and low cost cat scans. Etc.

Take a look at veterinary fees. They are paid for by the clients directly and the costs are affordable. A whole course of chemo is only a few thousand dollars. In fact, in Canada, cat scans are so expensive, that for a while, they were offering a cat scan for your pet for a few hundred dollars and the owner could get one at the same time for free. Well, the government put a stop to that! A free cat scan!! No way could that be tolerated.

Before the U.S. airline industry was deregulated, air fares were sky high. After deregulation, you could fly for petty cash.

 

[TEPO]

I only just came back to this, and have found all the arguments about macroeconomics quite interesting, but kind-of irrelevant to my particular situation.

In this situation, two groups are involved in education and social change, both are doing this without any government subsidies, independently, out of an alturistic desire to improve the lot of young people in their local area. Both are, however, influenced by a mixture of hard-left ideas drawn from Marxism and anarchism.

So, in effect, is it ok to support them for what they are doing (giving kids who are otherwise on the ‘prison pipeline’ a chance to turn their lives around) or should I not support them because of the ideology which drives this practical concern?

Hhhhhhhhhh. What do you mean they’re involved in “ecducation AND social change”, and what gives them the authority to discuss “social change” in class…? Is that something that they will undoubtedly include in their curriculum…?

Are we talking about jr. High, high school, college students or what?

Perhaps you could make it known that “social change” is not something that you or your staff agree would be in the best interest of the students. Perhaps you could make a conditional aggreement with them that if they cross the line then the whole thing is off…! Period.!

 

[gtrenewed]

I was driving someplace and listening to the radio and a caller said that if we had an open free market competition for health care, the way we do for hotels and air fares, then you would see lab tests and doctor visits for petty cash and low cost cat scans. Etc.

Take a look at veterinary fees. They are paid for by the clients directly and the costs are affordable. A whole course of chemo is only a few thousand dollars. In fact, in Canada, cat scans are so expensive, that for a while, they were offering a cat scan for your pet for a few hundred dollars and the owner could get one at the same time for free. Well, the government put a stop to that! A free cat scan!! No way could that be tolerated.

Before the U.S. airline industry was deregulated, air fares were sky high. After deregulation, you could fly for petty cash.

What are you suggesting be deregulated? How is health care not a free market competition?

Insurance companies and malpractice lawyers have put a stranglehold on healthcare costs. They require test after test whether needed or not to protect themselves. Insurance pays for procedures done instead of on satisfactory outcomes.

Comparing animal care costs with human care costs is apples and oranges.

Look at airline safety, employee compensation, pilot fatigue, airline routing, etc after deregulation. There are plus’s and minus’s with regards to airline regulation/deregulation.

 

[gtrenewed]

I only just came back to this, and have found all the arguments about macroeconomics quite interesting, but kind-of irrelevant to my particular situation.

In this situation, two groups are involved in education and social change, both are doing this without any government subsidies, independently, out of an alturistic desire to improve the lot of young people in their local area. Both are, however, influenced by a mixture of hard-left ideas drawn from Marxism and anarchism.

So, in effect, is it ok to support them for what they are doing (giving kids who are otherwise on the ‘prison pipeline’ a chance to turn their lives around) or should I not support them because of the ideology which drives this practical concern?

Sorry for my part of the off topic debate.

Where is the church in this area? Are there no Catholic or Christian organizations bringing a light?

 

[Abu]

gtrenewed, post #24
We are the state. Many countries created excesses of benefits, not merely providing for the poor and elderly. We can avoid that by learning of the best and worst of each system.

The U.S.A. is now among the countries in which government socialist interference has
crippled health care and, yes, a good system, following Catholic social teaching, is now needed.

The right decries redistribution of wealth; yet, by their greed and incompetence they allowed for the redistribution of wealth from the many to the few in the financial market.

Such prejudice equates swindlers with only “the right” – how puerile. Further, it fails utterly to understand that it is government finagling that caused the debacle of the Hoover and FDR administrations in the1930’s, and more recently, going back to the Carter era, the meltdown which occurred in 2008.

By trying to provide for the common good in areas like healthcare, a basic right, is not socialism.

The common good here is NOT served by the State playing nanny.
Health Insurance is merely one aspect, which seems to have become paramount, here. Bishop of Fargo, North Dakota Samuel J. Aquila has written a letter encouraging priests, deacons, vowed religious and laymen to become engaged in promoting "genuine health care reform” in the U.S.A., at:
catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16987

He quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church’s description of subsidiarity, which holds that a “higher order” of society should not needlessly interfere with or displace a “lower order.”
"As a society seeks to bring about any good such as health care, there are many organic and intermediate groups which cooperate together to reach the desired goal. There is a danger in being persuaded to think that the national government is the sole instrument of the common good," he continued.
“Many different communities within society share this responsibility,” Bishop Aquila explained, naming communities such as the state, towns, fraternal organizations, businesses, cooperatives, parishes and the family as contributors to the social fabric.

The Bishop affirmed also that reform must exclude any provisions which deny "the dignity of human life, the right to follow one’s conscience, as informed by God, must be guaranteed, and access to health care must be ensured for the poor, the elderly, the handicapped, legal immigrants and the unborn.” Obviously abortion, euthanasia and contraception are all involved.

The danger in national government control is to dictate at feeling and whim that such grave concerns be overridden especially in the existing very real climate of chaos involving grave crisis, which is worldwide with relativism, selfism and secularism. The reality is that in the U.S. House of Reps and Senate, for instance, too many of the self-styled Catholics couldn’t care less about the grave issues of morality which have been raised, although some good has come from the November 2010 elections.

Post #67:
Look at airline safety….pilot fatigue… after deregulation

Where is the competent federal authority whose job it is to oversee these, rather than mismanaging economic realities?

 

[hambim336]

Hi

I found that a member asked same question in this forum some months ago.

Pls use search box to find this questions with comments

 

[Abu]

Federal Finagling Continues

**Millionaires in America
April 29, 2011 by Mark W. Hendrickson **
Extracts:
The fact, though, that last year’s increase of millionaires is attributable to stock-market gains is troublesome. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke stated that today’s higher stock prices show that his QE2 policy of inflating the monetary base has been successful. This raises questions of legitimacy, for it was never the Fed’s legislative mandate to pump up stock prices, as well as questions of fairness—if Bernanke is using his power to enrich stock-market investors. I am concerned that these facts will stir up resentment at millionaires in general. There are already too many Americans who have a negative, even hostile, attitude toward the rich.

As a free-market economist who believes in America as the Land of Opportunity, I hope our country continues to prosper and produce even more millionaires. Indeed, these two phenomena go hand in hand, rising together interdependently. However, an absolutely crucial distinction must be drawn here.

Let us respect those who earn their millions in free, honest commerce; let us end the socialistic practice of government determining economic winners by channeling favors and funds to favored clients. The former is the fulfillment of the American Dream; the latter is its repudiation.
See: visionandvalues.org/2011/04/millionaires-in-america/

 

[Monte_RCMS]

What are you suggesting be deregulated? How is health care not a free market competition?

Insurance companies and malpractice lawyers have put a stranglehold on healthcare costs. They require test after test whether needed or not to protect themselves. Insurance pays for procedures done instead of on satisfactory outcomes.

Comparing animal care costs with human care costs is apples and oranges.

Look at airline safety, employee compensation, pilot fatigue, airline routing, etc after deregulation. There are plus’s and minus’s with regards to airline regulation/deregulation.

Health care and medical insurance are two totally different things. The first is how you take care of yourself. The second is how you pay for it.

It’s not going to be deregulated until you are free to buy one of these; this is from the Indiana Plan. Check it out.

health–savings–accounts.com/plans-in.htm

The purpose of ANY industry is to serve the public. More people fly at lower cost now than ever before. Airline safety is probably better now than ever before. Airline technology is probably better now than ever before … the airlines are free to innovate. Any airline that does not serve the public goes out of business.

Airline safety is controlled by the airlines, the FAA and the NTSB … nothing to do with the (former) Civil Aeronautics Board.

If pilots, maintenance people and other crew, and admin people don’t like working for the airlines, they are free to seek other employment.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I think that I did an adequate job explaining it, so I will only add this:

The analogue would be if the government was to give you a bike to use on this trail, a set of clubs to use on the golf course, or a car to drive on the road.

Well that doesn’t really help your case. Because if that’s what it takes to qualify as wealth redistribution (the giving of a material object), then health care also does not qualify. The analogue would be if the government were to give you a CAT scanner machine of your very own instead of just having recourse to use such a machine in the course of your medical treatment. No, you are trying to draw a distinction that just isn’t there. The only real distinction is that you personnally don’t mind seeing your taxes go for bike paths and golf courses but you do mind them going for health care.

What is really going on is this: You don’t like any government sponsored health care. That is fine. You are entitled to hold that opinion. But that is not enough for you. You want to make it look like the adoption of your view is Catholic doctrine, binding on all faithful Catholics to accept as true. You are doing this by trying to characterize any government sponsored health care as wealth redistribution. But Catholic doctrine on wealth redistribution does not specifically call public health care wealth redistribution. You may find individual clergy that aggree with your personal view, but that does not make it Church doctrine. Even the clergy that aggree with you personally, if they are being honest, will admit that is their own personal view and not offical Catholic teaching. But I will not allow to go unchallenged that notion that the Church has already ruled definitively against the morality of any government sponsored health care.

And while we are at it, what about government sponsored education? Is that also wealth redistribution? Does the Church declare as doctrine that public education is intrinsically immoral? Or course not. We may prefer a Catholic education based on prudential judgement, but public schools are not doctrinally immoral. And what is the difference between paying teachers to teach all kids and paying doctors to treat all sick people? It is service in both case. How could one service be morally neutral and the other be intrinsically immoral?

Just admit that it is your opinion and I won’t challenge you on that anymore.

 

[gtrenewed]

Health care and medical insurance are two totally different things. The first is how you take care of yourself. The second is how you pay for it.

It’s not going to be deregulated until you are free to buy one of these; this is from the Indiana Plan. Check it out.

health–savings–accounts.com/plans-in.htm

The purpose of ANY industry is to serve the public. More people fly at lower cost now than ever before. Airline safety is probably better now than ever before. Airline technology is probably better now than ever before … the airlines are free to innovate. Any airline that does not serve the public goes out of business.

Airline safety is controlled by the airlines, the FAA and the NTSB … nothing to do with the (former) Civil Aeronautics Board.

If pilots, maintenance people and other crew, and admin people don’t like working for the airlines, they are free to seek other employment.

Just a point of clarification - The purpose of a public corporation, in any industry, is to serve the interests of the stockholders! That is part of the problem with health insurance companies policies of cancelling policies, focusing payments on procedures instead of outcomes, raising rates to cover inefficiencies, and denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Both health care and health insurance need reforming. There are different ways to accomplish this; however, a government plan does not necessarily equate to socialism. Continually playing the “socialism card” stunts the debate.

All industries must have some sort of regulatory oversight to ensure proper behavior. How much depends on the industry and the players in the industry. I agree that it should be the least amount necessary to be vigilant.

Interesting link, thanks.

 

[gtrenewed]

Well that doesn’t really help your case. Because if that’s what it takes to qualify as wealth redistribution (the giving of a material object), then health care also does not qualify. The analogue would be if the government were to give you a CAT scanner machine of your very own instead of just having recourse to use such a machine in the course of your medical treatment. No, you are trying to draw a distinction that just isn’t there. The only real distinction is that you personnally don’t mind seeing your taxes go for bike paths and golf courses but you do mind them going for health care.

What is really going on is this: You don’t like any government sponsored health care. That is fine. You are entitled to hold that opinion. But that is not enough for you. You want to make it look like the adoption of your view is Catholic doctrine, binding on all faithful Catholics to accept as true. You are doing this by trying to characterize any government sponsored health care as wealth redistribution. But Catholic doctrine on wealth redistribution does not specifically call public health care wealth redistribution. You may find individual clergy that aggree with your personal view, but that does not make it Church doctrine. Even the clergy that aggree with you personally, if they are being honest, will admit that is their own personal view and not offical Catholic teaching. But I will not allow to go unchallenged that notion that the Church has already ruled definitively against the morality of any government sponsored health care.

And while we are at it, what about government sponsored education? Is that also wealth redistribution? Does the Church declare as doctrine that public education is intrinsically immoral? Or course not. We may prefer a Catholic education based on prudential judgement, but public schools are not doctrinally immoral. And what is the difference between paying teachers to teach all kids and paying doctors to treat all sick people? It is service in both case. How could one service be morally neutral and the other be intrinsically immoral?

Just admit that it is your opinion and I won’t challenge you on that anymore.

Well said!

 

[gtrenewed]

Federal Finagling Continues

Millionaires in America
**April 29, 2011 by Mark W. Hendrickson **
Extracts:
The fact, though, that last year’s increase of millionaires is attributable to stock-market gains is troublesome. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke stated that today’s higher stock prices show that his QE2 policy of inflating the monetary base has been successful. This raises questions of legitimacy, for it was never the Fed’s legislative mandate to pump up stock prices, as well as questions of fairness—if Bernanke is using his power to enrich stock-market investors. I am concerned that these facts will stir up resentment at millionaires in general. There are already too many Americans who have a negative, even hostile, attitude toward the rich.

As a free-market economist who believes in America as the Land of Opportunity, I hope our country continues to prosper and produce even more millionaires. Indeed, these two phenomena go hand in hand, rising together interdependently. However, an absolutely crucial distinction must be drawn here.

Let us respect those who earn their millions in free, honest commerce; let us end the socialistic practice of government determining economic winners by channeling favors and funds to favored clients. The former is the fulfillment of the American Dream; the latter is its repudiation.
See: visionandvalues.org/2011/04/millionaires-in-america/

The stock market has also helped anyone who has a retirement plan based on it. This helps all economic levels.

Having creative people creating wealth is not germaine to this discussion. Having the government involved in healthcare reform is not necessarily socialism. Having programs that see to the needs of the poor and elderly is not wealth redistribution.

I am very much in favor of creative people creating wealth in any industry. However, to say that it always results in an effective trickle down economy is overstating the case. I don’t want their wealth, I want an effective advocate to fight the injustices found in the health care/health insurance industry.

 

[Abu]

gtrenewed (#74)
The purpose of a public corporation, in any industry, is to serve the interests of the stockholders!

And how can that be done if the business does not offer what the buyers of the goods or services need or want at a competitive price in a free society?

 

[Abu]

gtrenewed
Having the government involved in healthcare reform is not necessarily socialism. Having programs that see to the needs of the poor and elderly is not wealth redistribution.

Agreed, not necessarily socialism – but how it is done may well be as in the nanny approach in the U.K.
No government has the moral obligation to provide (or legislate the provision of) health coverage to all of its citizens. Equally, the U.S. government does not have the obligation to clothe all naked people, feed all hungry people, bury all dead people, etc.
There are many compelling arguments to extending a level of medical care to the less fortunate. However, it is wrong to create an artificial moral imperative (unsubstantiated by Church teachings) to dictate either who is responsible for creating/providing the solution or the required level of medical services to be provided. (Peter Mirus of Catholic Culture).

I want an effective advocate to fight the injustices found in the health care/health insurance industry.

You won’t get it by having the government dictate abortions and euthanasia and crippling the freedom of conscience in the Catholic agencies. The background should be helpful:

drwilliamluckey.com/index.cfm/2009/6/20/Government-Health-Care
Government “Health Care”
June 20, 2009, Dr. William Luckey
"Firstly, the proper term for what is being discussed is “medical care,” not health care. Health care is the responsibility of each and every person according to his ability to influence events that affect his or her health. This would include eating good foods, getting enough sleep, trying to stay away from dangerous situations if possible, and so forth. But when even doing these things do not work to preserve one’s health, one seeks out medical professionals to aid in returning to health, if possible. So we are really speaking about medical care, not health care.

"Next, the medical care system in the United States is the best in the world. We have the best-trained physicians, nurses and technicians in the world, and we have the most up-to-date medical equipment.

"Thirdly, we have the best medical financing system in the world. We have many medical insurance companies, including one that will insure you for $10 per day, which advertises on television. Our emergency rooms are required by law to take anyone who comes in, and our ambulances are required to take anyone who wants to go. This includes people who have colds, flu, a “boo-boo,” regardless of their ability to pay, and the cost for this is foisted on the paying patients of the hospital, unknown to them. The hospital is not required to cure the nonpaying patient who is seriously ill or injured, but must get them at least to where they are stabilized.

"Fourthly, physicians and hospitals are willing to take payments.

"Fifthly, there is Medicare and Medicaid for the poor.

"This week, both the president and his press secretary stated that there were countries where the people were completely satisfied with a “single payer” (i.e., socialist, government-run) medical system. When the press secretary was asked to name one, he could not. But a study by the Cato Institute has some very interesting data. Patients having to wait for more than four months for non-emergency surgery: Britain, 36%; Canada, 27 %; New Zealand, 26%; Australia, 23%; the United States, 5%. The elderly evaluate their health care way better in the UK than in either Canada or the United States. During a 12-month period, in Ontario, 71 patients died waiting for coronary bypass surgery. The United States also has the lowest hospital stay period compared to the other western socialist countries. Prostate cancer mortality rates among those diagnosed with the disease: UK, 57%; France, 49%; Germany, 44%; Australia, 35%; New Zealand 30%; Canada, 25%; and the United States, only 19%. Remember, this is under the current systems, which, in the US, is a free-market system, but in all the aforementioned other countries is a socialist system. (See cato.org/pubs/pas/pa532.pdf.)
“Do these other systems sound like ones where people are completely satisfied?”

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Just a point of clarification - The purpose of a public corporation, in any industry, is to serve the interests of the stockholders! That is part of the problem with health insurance companies policies of cancelling policies, focusing payments on procedures instead of outcomes, raising rates to cover inefficiencies, and denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Both health care and health insurance need reforming. There are different ways to accomplish this; however, a government plan does not necessarily equate to socialism. Continually playing the “socialism card” stunts the debate.

All industries must have some sort of regulatory oversight to ensure proper behavior. How much depends on the industry and the players in the industry. I agree that it should be the least amount necessary to be vigilant.

Interesting link, thanks.

Unfortunately, the government is about the WORST alternative in terms of providing regulatory oversight.

The government is bureaucratic, for one thing. Meaning that it takes them forever to get to it AND their procedures are so slow, you think their arteries are going to clog while you are waiting for them to decide on anything … and then they are utterly politically correct … AND … they have no creativity or imagination. They follow a huge loose leaf binder labeled “Policies and Procedures”.

The government is just incapable of really regulating anything.

The best way of regulation is competition. Free and open competition.

You want a cell phone? Should you wait for the FCC to decide which is the best cell phone? Or should you visit the Verizon store, the AT&T store, the Radio Shack, and the internet and see what’s up?

We already learned that the ICC cannot get us better, cheaper rail or trucking service. And we have learned that the CAB cannot get us better, cheaper air service. And a lot of people are NOT happy with the FAA, either.

If you were allowed to shop around for medical insurance and for health care, you would be a lot happier person.

The best person to manage YOUR health is YOU.

What kind of hernia surgery is the best?

How much should you pay for a catscan?

How much should you pay for lab work?

How much for a hip replacement and are there medications that work? The Feds have already banned some low cost meds because some severely ill people adversely reacted, but they work well for many other people. WHICH MEANS: the government is totally focused on ONE SIZE MUST FIT ALL. But people have biochemical individuality. What works for one person doesn’t necessarily it will work for another person. If I’m happy with some low cost Australian herbal, then why do I have to do without it just because it doesn’t work for someone else.

AND, what give YOU the right to decide what is best for me? Do you, in some government cubicle, know more about my body than me?

There are many different meds for treating arthritis. If one works for me, and another doesn’t work, what gives you the right to decide which one I should be allowed to take … OR NONE AT ALL, because some work for some people and others work for other people.

You can shop around for qualifications and pricing for pretty much everything, but you are not allowed to shop around for a couple of things: health care/medical insurance and elementary & high school education … the government controls those.

Explain why, if I want an HSA/catastrophic medical insurance plan, that the government forbids me to buy one.

Read up on the Indiana Plan.

health–savings–accounts.com/plans-in.htm

The same thing applies to retirement programs.

Take a look at what the government has done with the IRA programs. The “instruction manual” for the taxes and eligibility now runs more than 100 pages. That is ridiculous.

Call up the IRS and ask for Publication # 590 … Individual Retirement Arrangements … It’s more than 100 pages. Which is utterly absurd. The rules for eligibility are incomprehensible and they change every year. Seriously, call 1-800-3676 or 1-800-829-1040 and get booklet. And that doesn’t even include the rules for 401(k) programs which have a retroactive eligibility test that takes place AFTER the taxes are due and AFTER the date at which you can participate in an IRA.

They should be open to everyone who wants one.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Agreed, not necessarily socialism – but how it is done may well be as in the nanny approach in the U.K.
No government has the moral obligation to provide (or legislate the provision of) health coverage to all of its citizens. Equally, the U.S. government does not have the obligation to clothe all naked people, feed all hungry people, bury all dead people, etc.
There are many compelling arguments to extending a level of medical care to the less fortunate. However, it is wrong to create an artificial moral imperative (unsubstantiated by Church teachings) to dictate either who is responsible for creating/providing the solution or the required level of medical services to be provided. (Peter Mirus of Catholic Culture).

You won’t get it by having the government dictate abortions and euthanasia and crippling the freedom of conscience in the Catholic agencies. The background should be helpful:

drwilliamluckey.com/index.cfm/2009/6/20/Government-Health-Care
Government “Health Care”
June 20, 2009, Dr. William Luckey
"Firstly, the proper term for what is being discussed is “medical care,” not health care. Health care is the responsibility of each and every person according to his ability to influence events that affect his or her health. This would include eating good foods, getting enough sleep, trying to stay away from dangerous situations if possible, and so forth. But when even doing these things do not work to preserve one’s health, one seeks out medical professionals to aid in returning to health, if possible. So we are really speaking about medical care, not health care.

"Next, the medical care system in the United States is the best in the world. We have the best-trained physicians, nurses and technicians in the world, and we have the most up-to-date medical equipment.

"Thirdly, we have the best medical financing system in the world. We have many medical insurance companies, including one that will insure you for $10 per day, which advertises on television. Our emergency rooms are required by law to take anyone who comes in, and our ambulances are required to take anyone who wants to go. This includes people who have colds, flu, a “boo-boo,” regardless of their ability to pay, and the cost for this is foisted on the paying patients of the hospital, unknown to them. The hospital is not required to cure the nonpaying patient who is seriously ill or injured, but must get them at least to where they are stabilized.

"Fourthly, physicians and hospitals are willing to take payments.

"Fifthly, there is Medicare and Medicaid for the poor.

"This week, both the president and his press secretary stated that there were countries where the people were completely satisfied with a “single payer” (i.e., socialist, government-run) medical system. When the press secretary was asked to name one, he could not. But a study by the Cato Institute has some very interesting data. Patients having to wait for more than four months for non-emergency surgery: Britain, 36%; Canada, 27 %; New Zealand, 26%; Australia, 23%; the United States, 5%. The elderly evaluate their health care way better in the UK than in either Canada or the United States. During a 12-month period, in Ontario, 71 patients died waiting for coronary bypass surgery. The United States also has the lowest hospital stay period compared to the other western socialist countries. Prostate cancer mortality rates among those diagnosed with the disease: UK, 57%; France, 49%; Germany, 44%; Australia, 35%; New Zealand 30%; Canada, 25%; and the United States, only 19%. Remember, this is under the current systems, which, in the US, is a free-market system, but in all the aforementioned other countries is a socialist system. (See cato.org/pubs/pas/pa532.pdf.)
“Do these other systems sound like ones where people are completely satisfied?”

The reason why ratings in socialist medical systems are so high … is that the people who are NOT happy … are dead already!

ONLY THE HAPPY PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO VOTE!

The others have deceased.