How can you be Democratic and also be Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter itstymyguy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I suppose the question is about the meaning of ‘access’ in access to healthcare. Some might see that as meaning free, and others as, it is there available for you as a service, but it costs money because it has to be paid for somehow.

In third world countries where people do not actually have hospitals and medical centres they can visit, it could well be said they don’t have access to healthcare.
 
Rau said:
Correction: on your own, unless you have financial resources to meet the costs.
Click to expand...
Yes, if you have lots of money or good insurance, you can probably (probably) handle those kinds of costs. But if you don’t, you won’t get that health care.
 
Polak said:
I suppose the question is about the meaning of ‘access’ in access to healthcare. Some might see that as meaning free, and others as, it is there available for you as a service, but it costs money because it has to be paid for somehow.

In third world countries where people do not actually have hospitals and medical centres they can visit, it could well be said they don’t have access to healthcare.
Click to expand...
“Access” is meaningless without an ability to actually get the healthcare. We all have “access” to yachts, and to chartered jets, and to private islands. The Church requires that everyone have actual, meaningful access.
 
TMC said:
“Access” is meaningless without an ability to actually get the healthcare. We all have “access” to yachts, and to chartered jets, and to private islands. The Church requires that everyone have actual, meaningful access.
Click to expand...
Fair point.

Tbh the main thing I was counter arguing was your statement about how members on here believe some people should not have access to healthcare. I still find that quite difficult to believe. I could see them being against free healthcare, because it needs to be paid for somehow and if you have money, you should pay for it. I don’t think any Catholic here has argued that if you’re dirt poor, you shouldn’t have access to some type of basic medical care. That would just seem too heartless. Feel free to show me a quote or two if they have though.

In the UK if you earn below a certain wage, you don’t have to pay for national healthcare and can still access it. I think that’s fair. People start getting National Insurance take from their pay cheques once they earn over a certain amount, and the amount that gets taken depends on their earnings.

The only problem that I have with that system is that you are forced to pay NI (if you earn over a particular amount). I believe you should be able to opt out of it if you prefer to get yourself private healthcare insurance instead because you deem national healthcare to be of insufficient quality.
 
40.png
How can you be Democratic and also be Catholic? Social Justice
Uh, no. That is not true. The Church actually teaches that the right to private property is limited by the needs of others, such that no person should own excess goods while others are in need.
Click to expand...
Please show me in the Catechism or the Bible where is says people should be given something for free when they put no effort forth. Others in need does NOT include people who can work to be given something for free. I already mentioned the charity component to help those in need when they can’t support themselves, aka the sick, widows, children including orphans.
 
Well the Bible definitely talks about it being pretty difficult for a rich man to get into heaven and there are many stories that don’t show rich people, overflowing with possessions, in a good light.
 
Polak said:
Tbh the main thing I was counter arguing was your statement about how members on here believe some people should not have access to healthcare. I still find that quite difficult to believe.
Click to expand...
Why? It is a very common position on the American right, and this forum is dominated by right-leaning Americans.
Polak said:
I could see them being against free healthcare, because it needs to be paid for somehow and if you have money, you should pay for it.
Click to expand...
Some people take this position, others say it should be government provided for all (a minority, to be sure), and others say you should pay for it or don’t get it (probably a minority also, at least I hope).
Polak said:
I don’t think any Catholic here has argued that if you’re dirt poor, you shouldn’t have access to some type of basic medical care.
Click to expand...
No Catholic should make that argument, but give it a minute. Chances are a few will be along shortly. The default position on the American right is that the poor are entitled to limited emergency services, but not basic healthcare.
 
What I wrote is a quote from Catholic teaching. Here is one place it is found:
No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life. In short, “as the Fathers of the Church and other eminent theologians tell us, the right of private property may never be exercised to the detriment of the common good.” When “private gain and basic community needs conflict with one another,” it is for the public authorities “to seek a solution to these questions, with the active involvement of individual citizens and social groups.”
Click to expand...
That is from Populorum Progessio http://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_26031967_populorum.html

This teaching is also codified in the Catechism, appropriately enough, in the section on the 7th Commandment (thou shalt not steal), because private property that does not respect the inherent rights of the poor to goods is a form of theft. The relevant paragraphs are in the 2400s. One important relevant paragraph is 2406 which says:
Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good.
Click to expand...
 
Also true. Able bodied people should try to find work, as long as there is work available to them. Having more than you need however isn’t seen as something positive. Also some people earn so little that they could still do with help from those who have more than enough. In a well run nation, even those who earn the least should get enough money for a good standard of living. Sadly, in a country as rich as the USA, that somehow isn’t the case.
 
I don’t want to seem like I am having a go at America either. There is more than enough money in the world to wipe out poverty and it hasn’t happened. It is that simple. That show that lots of people are not following the teachings of the Church. Why would they I suppose, since many of them are non believers?
 
Polak said:
The only problem that I have with that system is that you are forced to pay NI (if you earn over a particular amount). I believe you should be able to opt out of it if you prefer to get yourself private healthcare insurance instead because you deem national healthcare to be of insufficient quality.
Click to expand...
The problem with opt out is that this cuts off funding. In other jurisdictions, everyone supports the National scheme, but individuals can opt in to a private scheme too. In Australia it is like this, and the government financially encourages the better off to have private insurance to lessen the load on the public system. Should you later require, say, surgery, you choose which system to employ. Of course, those with private healthcare often choose the private system.
 
You’re right that allowing people to opt out of paying national insurance means so many people could opt out, there would be no funding left for the national health service (or a lot less).
Rau said:
In Australia it is like this, and the government financially encourages the better off to have private insurance to lessen the load on the public system. Should you later require, say, surgery, you choose which system to employ. Of course, those with private healthcare often choose the private system.
Click to expand...
It’s the same in the UK. If you want private health care, you can get it, but you still have to pay the national insurance for the NHS. I don’t think this is fair. They want people who are richer to pay into the national health service but then also encourage them not to use it, if they have private healthcare. The rich also pay in a lot more national insurance in the UK (it’s 12% of what you earn after a certain amount). Is it a similar system in Australia? So some people could be paying thousands of pounds per year in national insurance, that they don’t ever use. It wouldn’t surprise me if for many of them, the private healthcare insurance they get is actually cheaper than the national insurance they pay.
 
Toledo said:
This would be extremely anti-Christian and anti-Catholic. The Church has never taught people should be given something free when they aren’t working (excluding sick, widows, kids, etc. which is charity).
Click to expand...
arvo comment was not a proposal of what should be. It was an objective analysis of what is. Facts are not Christian or anti-Christian. They are just true or false. arvo described a mechanism whereby the modern capitalist system concentrates the most wealth in fewer and fewer people. If you think this is false, just look at objective statistics of the difference between the richest and the poorest.
 
40.png
How can you be Democratic and also be Catholic? Social Justice
What I wrote is a quote from Catholic teaching. Here is one place it is found: No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life. In short, “as the Fathers of the Church and other eminent theologians tell us, the right of private property may never be exercised to the detriment of the common good.” When “private gain and basic community needs conflict with one another,” it is for the public authorities “to seek a solution to thes…
Click to expand...
I must not be making myself clear. I am not taking this discussion from the perspective of the rich man, but the poor man. Universal income gives something to someone for free, whether or not they have worked. That is what is not Catholic.
40.png
How can you be Democratic and also be Catholic? Social Justice
arvo comment was not a proposal of what should be. It was an objective analysis of what is. Facts are not Christian or anti-Christian. They are just true or false. arvo described a mechanism whereby the modern capitalist system concentrates the most wealth in fewer and fewer people. If you think this is false, just look at objective statistics of the difference between the richest and the poorest.
Click to expand...
I understand the facts; I was just stating the reason for those facts.
40.png
How can you be Democratic and also be Catholic? Social Justice
True, but it also says, “let he who does not work not eat”. It’s a double thing. Those who choose not to work are not owed charity. Those who have wealth should freely give alms to those who cannot make enough for their needs.
Click to expand...
Exactly, yes, thank you.
 
Last edited:
Polak said:
The rich also pay in a lot more national insurance in the UK (it’s 12% of what you earn after a certain amount). Is it a similar system in Australia?
Click to expand...
Australia: Almost everyone who works full time pays the Medicare Levy of 2% (if taxable income) if they earn more than $27,069. Only people who earn over $90,000 (singles) or $180,000 (couples) pay the Medicare Levy Surcharge IF they don’t have private health cover.

The Medicare Levy Surcharge is a tax you pay if you don’t have private health cover and your annual taxable income is over $90,000 as a single or $180,000 as a couple or family. Depending on your income, the surcharge will be between 1% to 1.5%.
 
40.png
How can you be Democratic and also be Catholic? Social Justice
Many things are that way. Public libraries for example. There is no evil here.
Click to expand...
This is literal theft, stealing from someone who has something and giving it to someone who refuses to work. It is a sin of a high magnitude.

If you don’t understand the difference between a shared common use (library) and giving someone something which they didn’t earn or deserve, from people who have worked…I’m not going to be able to help you.
 
Democrats – they are pro choice.

With Republicans its pro life.

I never heard of a pro life democrat.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top