Is it moral to force people to buy health care?

[Moscati]

I suggest many alternative methods.

See this famous SF doctor who cured herself naturally from advanced breast cancer

drday.com

also eee curezone.com

Oh, for goodness sake. That Dr. Day woman claims she can cure AIDS and that people who oppose her medical advice are from Satan.

The first link I clicked on denied the reality of hell, and the next landed me on this nonsense:

*The polices which are espoused and proclaimed by Pope John Paul II, and the present Pope Benedict, are as follows:

1. End of sovereignty for the United States and other countries.
2. End of absolute property rights.
3. End of all gun rights.
4. The new international economic Order (world government).
5. The redistribution of wealth and jobs.
6. Calls for nations to trust the United Nations.
7. Total disarmament.
8. Promote the United Nations as the hope for peace.
9. Promote UNESCO, the deadly educational and cultural arm of the United Nations.
10. Promote interdependence.
11. Support sanctions honoring Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin - the New Age Humanist Priest.
12. Support the belief that the economic principle of traditional Christian or Catholic social doctrine is the economic principle of communism.
13. Promote the Pope as the acting go-between for the United States and the Soviet Union*

The anti-Semitism was 100x worse. I have some issues with the healthcare bill, too, but this is ridiculous, and that’s a terrible website.

 

[rpp]

No, it is not moral to require all people to purchase a product many would refuse to use (e.g. Christian Scientists).

Obamacare, as passed by congress this last week, is intrinsically immoral on many different grounds. The one you mentioned is only one of them.

To claim otherwise is to deny the authentic teachings of the Catholic Church as stated, then reaffirmed after the vote, by the USCCB. If you disagree with me, do not argue with me, go tell it to your bishop.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Ofcourse without a car my life would totally stop. Most of where I go is not on a busline. Without me to driver her places my wife would be dead. She has many health problems.

People survived without cars for many years my friend. Point still stands, although you may feel you need a car no one is forcing you to buy one. Therefore you do not have to buy car insurance.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Felix_Il_Gatto]

Of course following the logic of this thread so far why can’t the imperial federal government use it’s police power to force us to buy a car? After all, people without cars put a burden on society because we have to fund public transportation systems.

Well, I don’t believe in public transportation, so I don’t think I should have to pay for it with my tax dollars.
It seems as if this is just going to keep going around in circles.

 

[rpp]

Well, I don’t believe in public transportation, so I don’t think I should have to pay for it with my tax dollars.
It seems as if this is just going to keep going around in circles.

I am with you in the words you have posted. Most things government should not be involved in.

(I suspect that is not what you really meant.)

I object to paying taxes for public schools. Personally, I think public education should be eliminated. Public schools should be permanently closed and the money we spend on it returned to families by reduced taxes so that families can educate their children in the way they see fit. te same can be applied to lots of other things too.

Never forget this critical truth about taxes. If you want to discourage an activity, tax it. To tax the “wealthy” at a much higher rate discourages the hard work reacquired to achieve wealth. “After all,” says the potential inventor, “Why should I work hard or create a new company if I only get to keep less than half of what I earn? Heck, I may as well just be a wage slave or live on the government dole.”

 

[lee01238]

People survived without cars for many years my friend. Point still stands, although you may feel you need a car no one is forcing you to buy one. Therefore you do not have to buy car insurance.

I think that car insurance is quite reasonable, because anybody can get into accident, Plus it only costs about $240 a year which is not that bad. On the other hand health insurance will likely cost a family with 3 or more kids 1-2 thousand dollare every month.
That in my opinion is an unjust burden. This will force both parent to have to work long hours with no time to spend with their kids which will have disastrous effect on the society.
But hey, it foesn’t matter to many people because they think it’s all worth it just to have everybody INSURED.

 

[rpp]

I think that car insurance is quite reasonable, because anybody can get into accident, Plus it only costs about $240 a year which is not that bad. On the other hand health insurance will likely cost a family with 3 or more kids 1-2 thousand dollare every month.
That in my opinion is an unjust burden.

In addition, if you do not have a car, you do nt have to have car insurance.

I fly airplanes and I have insurance for that. Most people here, however ,are probably not pilots and have no need for that type of insurance.

The requirement to get health insurance is that your have a pulse. For most people, there are a few exceptions I think, that is not an optional activity.

 

[aspawloski4th]

People survived without cars for many years my friend. Point still stands, although you may feel you need a car no one is forcing you to buy one. Therefore you do not have to buy car insurance.

Yours in Christ
Joe

The need of one is. Don’t compare to the pastr either. Without a car I cant go to work, and my wuife cant get to her doctors. My wife wouldnt be able to get to church without me having a car because she has severe arthraitis. My point stands. We don’t define need as merely enough to keep one’s heart pumping, we are people not animals.

 

[rpp]

The need of one is. Don’t compare to the pastr either. Without a car I cant go to work, and my wuife cant get to her doctors. My wife wouldnt be able to get to church without me having a car because she has severe arthraitis. My point stands. We don’t define need as merely enough to keep one’s heart pumping, we are people not animals.

There are many places in this country where owning a car is completely unneeded. Think aout an urban dweller in Chicago or Manhattan. Most people who live in those areas do not own cars, and many do not even have a drivers license. For example, my (now ex) wife did not have a drivers license until she move here to Oregon from New York City. She was 38 when we were “married”.

Here in Oregon, I have co-workers who have chosen to get apartments withing walking distance to the office, which is also in walking distance to a medium sized strip mall with pharmacy, sundry and grocery stores. They do not cars either; and this is the suburbs.

If you choose to live in a rea and engage in a job where you need a car, that is YOUR CHOICE. Other non-car owners should not have to pay for your choices.

The car insurance analogy is not applicable.

 

[lee01238]

Oh, for goodness sake. That Dr. Day woman claims she can cure AIDS and that people who oppose her medical advice are from Satan.

The first link I clicked on denied the reality of hell, and the next landed me on this nonsense:

*The polices which are espoused and proclaimed by Pope John Paul II, and the present Pope Benedict, are as follows:

1. End of sovereignty for the United States and other countries.
2. End of absolute property rights.
3. End of all gun rights.
4. The new international economic Order (world government).
5. The redistribution of wealth and jobs.
6. Calls for nations to trust the United Nations.
7. Total disarmament.
8. Promote the United Nations as the hope for peace.
9. Promote UNESCO, the deadly educational and cultural arm of the United Nations.
10. Promote interdependence.
11. Support sanctions honoring Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin - the New Age Humanist Priest.
12. Support the belief that the economic principle of traditional Christian or Catholic social doctrine is the economic principle of communism.
13. Promote the Pope as the acting go-between for the United States and the Soviet Union*

The anti-Semitism was 100x worse. I have some issues with the healthcare bill, too, but this is ridiculous, and that’s a terrible website.

Look she knows her health stuff and she cured herself from cancer. Obviusly she is wrong
about Catholicism.

 

[aspawloski4th]

There are many places in this country where owning a car is completely unneeded. Think aout an urban dweller in Chicago or Manhattan. Most people who live in those areas do not own cars, and many do not even have a drivers license. For example, my (now ex) wife did not have a drivers license until she move here to Oregon from New York City. She was 38 when we were “married”.

Here in Oregon, I have co-workers who have chosen to get apartments withing walking distance to the office, which is also in walking distance to a medium sized strip mall with pharmacy, sundry and grocery stores. They do not cars either; and this is the suburbs.

If you choose to live in a rea and engage in a job where you need a car, that is YOUR CHOICE. Other non-car owners should not have to pay for your choices.

The car insurance analogy is not applicable.

When I last checked there was a depression out there. In this econemy one doesn’t usually dont get to choose their job if they are going to be employed, they have to go with who ever hires them. Your same logic could be used for anything you want. Your logic could tell someone they don’t need health isurance because they don’t need to live. I thought an independence fanatic like you would of agreed with my arguement because if one has a car they are not depending on tax payer supported public transportation! If I were to live by the job and shopping it would be far away from medical and church. So a car is needed. We have to pay for things through taxes everyday because of people merely choosing to live.

 

[markomalley]

I think that car insurance is quite reasonable, because anybody can get into accident, Plus it only costs about $240 a year which is not that bad. On the other hand health insurance will likely cost a family with 3 or more kids 1-2 thousand dollare every month.
That in my opinion is an unjust burden. This will force both parent to have to work long hours with no time to spend with their kids which will have disastrous effect on the society.
But hey, it foesn’t matter to many people because they think it’s all worth it just to have everybody INSURED.

The other point about car insurance is that you are typically required to get LIABILITY insurance, not COLLISION insurance, nor COMPREHENSIVE insurance. Think about that a bit.

Liability insurance doesn’t protect YOU. It protects the other guy from your stupidity. If you get in an accident that is your fault, and the only insurance you have is liability, you won’t get a dime to repair your car…the other guy will get what is needed to repair his car.

The equivalent, in car insurance terms, to Obamacare is if the government forced every driver to carry COLLISION and COMPREHENSIVE insurance, along with forcing each driver to purchase an extended bumper-to-bumper warranty and a comprehensive maintenance plan (that covered oil changes, brakes, tires, rust, belts, wiper blades, and the whole nine yards). There is no state in the union that requires that from drivers.

 

[oldsinnner]

What if I don’t believe in the modern medicine (as I don’t) ? Why should I be forced to buy their ‘service’ if I’m totally against it. I don’t ever intend to go to any doctor because I don’t think they can help. They are a bunch charlatans and frauds in white coats. Why was this not ever an issue for the Catholic bishops ? This is just a legalized robbery designed to steal money from people like me who would otherwise never pay them. I thought stealing was a mortal sin.

Is being forced to pay taxes immoral ? That’s the crux of the issue here. Is it moral to force people to pay for the defense of their country ? Roads ? A Fire Department ? The national parks. Hey I haven’t been to a national park in 30 years. Why am I paying for that ? I don’t go to the public library either. Why am I paying for that ? My kids are long out of school. Why do I pay for that ? Let those with kids pay that.

My solution has always been that people should be allowed to state on their tax return, in say 10 categories, what they want 60% of their taxes to go to. The government can do with what they please with 30%, which is about 800 billion by the way, but we get the say on the rest of it. 10% automatically goes to retirement/SS. This money cannot be touched, as it has been. And you can pick as many categories as you like but must pick no less than 3. Once you make your initial picks, you can change 1 per year or add/drop. This way, what our government does, reflects what the people want done, and they can no longer buy votes. ( except with their 800 billion ) and AND they must balance the budget every year and run a 2% surplus that goes into a government ‘savings account’.

Categories would be:

1. pay off national debt
2. Defense/Homeland security
3. Medical Care
4. Infrastructure
5. Education
6. Land management, BLM, Parks etc.
7. Arts
8. Welfare, Food Stamps
9. Housing
10. Foreign aid

There would also be no such thing as a person who didn’t pay taxes. $500 would be the minimum tax people would be required to pay. $10 week, minus 2 weeks vacation.

Maximum tax, 28%. 10% tax on all corporations.

 

[rpp]

When I last checked there was a depression out there. In this econemy one doesn’t usually dont get to choose their job if they are going to be employed, they have to go with who ever hires them. Your same logic could be used for anything you want. Your logic could tell someone they don’t need health isurance because they don’t need to live. I thought an independence fanatic like you would of agreed with my arguement because if one has a car they are not depending on tax payer supported public transportation! If I were to live by the job and shopping it would be far away from medical and church. So a car is needed. We have to pay for things through taxes everyday because of people merely choosing to live.

Firstly, I am not a fanatic. Do not refer to me that in that manner, it is an insult and personal attacks and insults are not permitted on this forum. Repest this toward me or another member and you will be reported to the moderators.

Next, the current economic (note the spelling) situation has no bearing on what is moral or immoral. Nor does your current situation or mine affect Gods unchangeable morality and how it applies to us or others.

With that in mind, your post does not make any sense. My “logic can be used for anything”? You then try to put words in my mouth and alter the meaning of what I said.

Your response is unintelligible. I do not mean that as a personal attack, but rather you communicated what you had to say so poorly that it is completely unintelligible. Please restate what you are saying and, in doing so, please be sure to state clearly why paying for profoundly evil activities such as abortion, is moral in defense of your position.

So please explain why something that is clearly a grave evil is somehow morally good.

 

[Felix_Il_Gatto]

So now we should go back to the way bourgeoise society used to be: where only those wealthy enough to afford a good education have it offered to them? My family could never have afforded public education were it not provided by the government and they hardly have any knowledge of the things I was taught in school.
So, yeah, good point. Let’s just go back to keeping the proletariat down.

Also, “taxing the wealthy” does not discourage hard work. My parents have always been extremely hard-working and have never been able to make much money. They never resorted to government aid either. So, before you make judgments about people lacking in money being lazy, maybe you should think about your Savior who didn’t even have a place to lay His head!

I am with you in the words you have posted. Most things government should not be involved in.

(I suspect that is not what you really meant.)

I object to paying taxes for public schools. Personally, I think public education should be eliminated. Public schools should be permanently closed and the money we spend on it returned to families by reduced taxes so that families can educate their children in the way they see fit. te same can be applied to lots of other things too.

Never forget this critical truth about taxes. If you want to discourage an activity, tax it. To tax the “wealthy” at a much higher rate discourages the hard work reacquired to achieve wealth. “After all,” says the potential inventor, “Why should I work hard or create a new company if I only get to keep less than half of what I earn? Heck, I may as well just be a wage slave or live on the government dole.”

 

[rpp]

So now we should go back to the way bourgeoise society used to be: where only those wealthy enough to afford a good education have it offered to them? My family could never have afforded public education were it not provided by the government and they hardly have any knowledge of the things I was taught in school.
So, yeah, good point. Let’s just go back to keeping the proletariat down.

Also, “taxing the wealthy” does not discourage hard work. My parents have always been extremely hard-working and have never been able to make much money. They never resorted to government aid either. So, before you make judgments about people lacking in money being lazy, maybe you should think about your Savior who didn’t even have a place to lay His head!

You know, if you had actually posted something on the topic or not derived directly from communism, I might have responded to your points. But, alas, we are not so fortunate.

 

[josephdaniel29]

The need of one is. Don’t compare to the pastr either. Without a car I cant go to work, and my wuife cant get to her doctors. My wife wouldnt be able to get to church without me having a car because she has severe arthraitis. My point stands. We don’t define need as merely enough to keep one’s heart pumping, we are people not animals.

As has been pointed out you choose to put yourself in a situation in which you needed a car. No one forced you to do it.

As to what you define as need. What you think you need and what you actually need are two very different things. Jesus promised that the Father would give us what we actually need, not all the things that our self-centered egos tell us we “need.”

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[josephdaniel29]

where only those wealthy enough to afford a good education have it offered to them?

My friend the rich keep getting richer because they keep doing the things that made them rich, and poor keep getting poorer because they continue doing the things that made them poor.

My family could never have afforded public education were it not provided by the government and they hardly have any knowledge of the things I was taught in school.

If they couldn’t afford it that was their decision. Did they further their education? Learn new job skills to earn more money? Move to where more lucrative work was? Work two or three jobs? Risk their entire life’s savings on a business venture?

Let’s just go back to keeping the proletariat down.

If the poor in this country stay down it’s because they choose to.

They never resorted to government aid either.

God bless them.

maybe you should think about your Savior who didn’t even have a place to lay His head!

Jesus didn’t use the police power of government to force people to obey His commandment to feed the poor. Our government does.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[aspawloski4th]

As has been pointed out you choose to put yourself in a situation in which you needed a car. No one forced you to do it.

As to what you define as need. What you think you need and what you actually need are two very different things. Jesus promised that the Father would give us what we actually need, not all the things that our self-centered egos tell us we “need.”

Yours in Christ
Joe

OK everyone. Lets define the word need. I bet we don’t get the same definition twice.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Firstly, I am not a fanatic. Do not refer to me that in that manner, it is an insult and personal attacks and insults are not permitted on this forum. Repest this toward me or another member and you will be reported to the moderators.

Next, the current economic (note the spelling) situation has no bearing on what is moral or immoral. Nor does your current situation or mine affect Gods unchangeable morality and how it applies to us or others.

With that in mind, your post does not make any sense. My “logic can be used for anything”? You then try to put words in my mouth and alter the meaning of what I said.

Your response is unintelligible. I do not mean that as a personal attack, but rather you communicated what you had to say so poorly that it is completely unintelligible. Please restate what you are saying and, in doing so, please be sure to state clearly why paying for profoundly evil activities such as abortion, is moral in defense of your position.

So please explain why something that is clearly a grave evil is somehow morally good.

I think I explained myself just fine.