Is supporting a "Welfare State" moral? Does it have limits?

[ricmat]

I’m sorry, that does not seem logical. The “mental defectives” would simply die under your system.

Parent activists have raised millions of dollars for research and lobbying, but to imagine that the absense of coordinated societal support would lead to anything but a cruel and indirect form of euthanasia seems pretty far fetched.

P.S. I would bet the 5% is not Federally insured, or has some other interesting fine print. I did not note such things because the comment was ‘safe’ investment

Well, you missed my point entirely…

Identifying people as “investments”, as you do, leads to the culture of death using the arguments I stated above (and others). These arguments have been used, unfortunately with success, in the past - i.e. federally funded euthanasia programs in the early 1900’s. Social engineering can have very very bad consequences, especially when backed by the power of the government.

The 5% is FDIC insured and is as safe as you can get. I’m the most conservative investor you can possibly imagine. This is a regular bank (nationwide). I’ll PM you if you are interested.

 

[melensdad]

Folks, as the guy who started this thread, and as we are drifting into political bickering over our President, Congress and many policies that we have that probably make no sense to either political party for any other fact than they exist so we keep them (mortgage deductions being one of those), can I ask if we can please return to the original topic?

We have in other threads determined that the government does not act in a moral way with regards to abortion, stem cell research, etc.

Nobody would suggest that it is moral to cut off aid to the mentally infirm or the physically incapable.

That being is there a limit to what is moral to support in terms of the welfare state? I’m curious about that line between poverty and middle class.

Do we provide government health care to the struggling middle class who may, if they make good decisions, pay for their own health care, but if they make bad decisions claim not to be able to “afford” health care because they chose to buy the $150 cable TV package, 2 packs of smokes a day and some other combination of non-needs? The people who make good decisions and buy health care with their hard earned dollars then would “deserve” the same free health care as the people who made the bad choices, so do we supply them with free cable TV, cigarettes and whatever else or do we give them the free health care too?

I guess it boils down to the question at what point do we say “NO, YOU DON’T GET (fill_in_the_blank) FROM THE GOVERNMENT DOLE” simply because you whine a lot about it?

I’m not trying to sound insensitive, I’m trying to see if there is some limit. Just like the Church charity program that requires specific things to get the free meal/lodging is there some requirement that we should put on government when it hands out money for various programs?

Is there a point where the government goes too far and it actually creates a dependent person out of an able bodied person and then it becomes immoral to support the government program?

Is there a point where government programs entice people to believe that they should be getting some government “dole” and then we should, as Catholics say that it is immoral to support such a program? For example, a mortgage deduction on your home. Why do we have it? Homeowners expect it, but why not just roll back the tax rate and eliminate the mortgage deduction?

 

[JimG]

Do we provide government health care to the struggling middle class who may, if they make good decisions, pay for their own health care, . . .

In principle I would say no. But currently I am trying to help a woman who has been suddenly widowed obtain health insurance. She had it through her husband’s employer. Now she is on temporary COBRA coverage, which will expire.

She CAN afford to pay for her own policy. But, since she is now age 60 and has a medical history–nothing particularly serious–neither the company through which she has the Cobra coverage, nor the local BC/BS affiliate will issue her a policy.

Paying for it is one thing; gaining acceptance of the insurors is another. Of course they would like for all the new policyholders to be in ther 20’s and 30’s with no medical history. That’s understandable from a profit point of view. But if we want people to pay for coverage, they shouldn’t be suddenly cut off from it after decades of coverage.

 

[RWMorris]

I support things like universal health care (in a modified sense) and I wish the government would reward people who tried to contribute to a “sustainable environment”. That being said, I am still a right-wing Republican…known as a “crunchy conservative”.

 

[ricmat]

Since this is a moral question, I think that the following thought experiment might be useful.

Pretend that there is a “social welfare utopia”, we’ll call it “Sweden” for lack of a better term. Further pretend that the government takes 100% of all earnings, and divvies it all up per capita and returns it (what’s left after paying for the womb to tomb nanny state) to everybody in equal amounts.

So there are no poor people, no hungry people, etc. You are born into this state, and there are no decisions to make regarding alms giving, or volunteering time to charitable organizations, etc. because none of that exists. It doesn’t exist because it is not necessary. And besides, nobody has any money left anyway.

For the sake of argument, we compare this imaginary country to the current US for the purposes of determining which is more moral.

The basic question is: “All other (moral) things being equal, the citizens of which state has the best chance of going to heaven?”

I argue that the citizens of “Sweden” have virtually no chance, based on Mt 24 (Judgment of the Nations). Everybody is born into that state, and never have to make a decision to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc. It just happens automatically, and they never think about it.

I also argue that the citizens of the US have “some” chance, based on Mt 24, since we need to decide on Catholic Relief Services, or Maryknoll vs. that big screen TV or whatever.

So the Swede is being judged by Jesus, and he says “Well, in my country nobody starved or lacked clothing.” So does Jesus say “Well done, good and faithful servant…” to this guy?

Is there more merit to the individual in giving when you don’t have to, or in “better results” that are done at the point of somebody else’s gun?

 

[JimG]

Not only that, but if all income is redistributed, and all essential needs met, people will be disinclined to work.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Recently I heard something like this on the radio…

How to Capture Wid Pigs

First, find a clear area in the woods and put some corn out. Once the pigs start eating the corn and get used to it, put up one side of a fence.

Once the pigs get used to it and start eating the corn again, put up another side of the fence.

When the pigs get used to that, put up the third side.

When they get used to that, put up the fourth fence, with a gate in it. Leave the gate open and wait for the pigs to come in.

When the pigs are inside, close the gate. The pigs will realize they are trapped, and will begin to dash around wildly. They canot escape, however, nor would they if they could. They have forgotten how to find food themselves, and you have yourself a herd of swine.

Something like that. Get the point?

 

[SoCalRC]

Nobody would suggest that it is moral to cut off aid to the mentally infirm or the physically incapable.

That is the disadvantage of age and experience. Eugenics was spectacularly popular from about 1900 to 1930 in this country. We created the model for the Nazi’s ethnic purity law.

We conducted forced sterilizations until the 1970s, when the Supreme Court finally overturned a corrupt and vile prior decision.

My wife and I also raised a severely autistic son before IDEA, before community based care was considered an option, and well the stench of a psuedo science stigma left people free to blame us for what is now recognized for what it is, a physically based neurological disorder.

Trust me, it’s like remembering seeing screeching ‘Christians’ push over a bus full of children because of the meletonin in their skin. You can shove it under the surface, but that type of hate, xenophobia, and just plain stupidity does not instantly vanish.

As for mortgage deductions, look at the math. You cannot roll back the rate far enough. It is another subsidy that allows financial mobility. Like everything from Social Security and Medicare to Pell grants, it is part of a system that allows a middle class to exist and financial mobility to be a legitimate option. You could argue that this somehow should not exist, but it is silly to argue that it somehow creates lazyness and other bad habits when the recipients are overwhelmingly employed and would readily identify themselves as productive members of society.

There are individual trapped in a cycle of poverty, but it isn’t lazyness brought on by an underfunded medicaid program or a luxurious s-chip program. It is everything from underfunded drop out factories to financial incentives for outsourcing.

Look at it this way. If anyone should be complaining, it is me. I live in a rarity - a donor county, in a donor state. But you don’t see me complaining how being on the Federal dole has made a significant number of the people here making over 300% of the poverty level inherently lazy and selfish because of all the middle class welfare they suck up.

This is because I find it nonsensical. A tiny number of haves and a huge number of have nots is not a society that recognizes the “proper understanding of the human person” per the Church. Further, it just seems to rely on a virtually nonexistant stereotype - welfare queens in Cadillacs. In reality, the nations poor tend to work more hours, be more religious, and more charitable in terms of percentage of income. The whole stereotype is just a rationalization to avoid Christian obligation.

Ricmat: I think you would have done better to use Luke 10. I think you mean Matt 25:31-46, with the Son of Man seperating us into sheep and goats. Notice that nations are called together, and judged. There is no indication that citizens are judged individually. And, everyone is surprised. That is, they make no connection between their actions and their spiritual life.

Jesus indicates on several occassions that who will get through the narrow door would surprise us. So I wouldn’t be too sure that our wealth combined with things like 47,000,000 uninsured and the highest infant mortality rate among industrialized nations won’t weigh heavily against us. Similiarly, who are we to say that ‘Godless communists’, like Cuba, aren’t rewarded for their extensive social services despite being our hated enemy.

Also, the idea that we have no choice in a modern, representative governement is just silly. We decide rather to spend $2.4T on war, or a tiny fraction of that on the 10,000,000 children who starve to death world each year. That’s the problem with Luke 10 - Jesus uses the hated foreigner as the good neighbor…

 

[Viki59]

. . . health care (which, BTW, is not a “right”) .

I’m confused. Why is health care not a right? We might as well say police and fire protection, and public education, are not rights. We pay taxes, which should go to cover the basic necessities, which should include immunizations, antibiotics, and emergency and preventive care at least.

We can walk past the man begging on the corner with a sign and choose not to contribute, as we know he has the choice to be out looking for work, but would rather beg.
We wouldn’t walk past that same man if he were lying in the street with a broken leg. Healthcare is a right.

 

[pathia]

I’m confused. Why is health care not a right? We might as well say police and fire protection, and public education, are not rights. We pay taxes, which should go to cover the basic necessities, which should include immunizations, antibiotics, and emergency and preventive care at least.​

This has always confused me. Life Liberty and Happyness. How exactly am I supposed to have a life, feel free and heavens forbid be happy when I have over 10x my yearly income in medical debt? 80% of my monthly income goes to paying off medical bill debts, this is before rent and food! I pick up second and third jobs now and then, but that invariably leads me to getting so sick I have to stop and then again just racks up more medical debt from the illness.

No insurance provider will cover me at a rate that is reasonable. The rates that are quoted me are near the size of my debt payments on the medical debt itself and that’s before copays etc. That changes nothing in the end. I am too young to go on medicare/medicaid. The bills continue to wrack up every year. Some eventually get dropped off because I am so poor that the hospital eventually takes pity on me, but this is a slow process.

The only way I could get government assistance is to quit my job and file for unemployment/disability. What sort of madness is that? Filing for bankruptcy is not an option, because all it would take is for another medical emergency to occur to throw me back into a pit of debt.

 

[Petergee]

A “welfare state” per se is neither moral or immoral and Catholics may legitimately disagree over whether, and to what extent, the state should provide welfare. (A welfare state is not to be confused with the state’s abolition of all private property (as in Marxist communist states) which** is** immoral.)

Don’t worry that a welfare state might be so perfect that you would have no opportunities to exercise personal charity. That’s never going to happen. Even if the welfare state was efficient enough to ensure everyone is fed and clothed adequately, there are still many other needs which you will be able to supply to your brothers and sisters in Christ. “The poor will be with you always” despite the best honest efforts of both private and collective attempts to help them.

And the reason the government gives a tax deduction for home mortgages is to encourage families to buy and live in their own home, which helps to stabilise the family and society.

 

[Holly3278]

There should never be a limit on how much the government can help the poor.

 

[melensdad]

There should never be a limit on how much the government can help the poor.

Yes, but that was not the question!!!

The question is what about “helping” those who are not poor?

At some point does the government “help”, when given to those with means, become a burden on the society because it changes the way people view their responsibilities?

Can government help simply go too far such that it hurts society and then become immoral?

I’m confused. Why is health care not a right? We might as well say police and fire protection, and public education, are not rights. We pay taxes,** which should go to cover the basic necessities**, which should include immunizations, antibiotics, and emergency and preventive care at least.

First, we need to realize that emergency medical treatment is provided for those who cannot pay their bills. Not all hospitals cover this, it is already provided.

But what about food? Or shelter? Are there things more basic than food and shelter? Should those come first before all else? If so, where does it stop? I’d like a 4 bedroom house, mine is only a 3 bedroom home. I had noodles for dinner last night, I would have preferred a rib-eye steak.

The point of this thread is to determine how far we can go in providing to people before the providing is well beyond charity.

 

[Alphonsus_John]

I’m sorry, but I can’t find any evidence that is anything but a myth. Look at Medicare, it’s overhead is 3%, less than 1/2 (and typically 1/3) that of any private health insurer - and it universally takes the most expensive cases for those most in need of medical care.

Myth? Just typing “medicare” and “waste” into google provides enough support for my basis: washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/07/23/LI2005072300409.html

I’ve worked for the government in the military for almost 10 years and my mom was a public school teacher for 30 years. The gov’t wastes money like no other.

Wow, there is an idea. A money market account with less than a $20K balance is now paying what, .75% interest?

A Universal Savings Account with $100,000+ is currently paying about 3.3%.

SoCal, ING pays 4.3% home.ingdirect.com/products/products.asp?s=OrangeSavingsAccount on it’s savings account and no one would put a retirement fund in a savings account.

Any standard long-term disability policy is both better and cheaper than social security. Social Security is a ponzi scheme. The gov’t takes my money as “insurance premiums” and uses it to pay current liabilities; a Ponzi scheme. The SS payments are comingled with the general funds, a practice that if it occurred in the business world would send people to prison. Ask a lawyer about a corporation mixing pension funds and general funds.

All that said, I know that certain circumstances can throw people’s lives out of order in a hurry. Injury, sickness, etc. can really wreck someone’s finances. I do believe some sort of help for the desperate is a societal obligation. No one should suffer needlessly in a country with this much wealth.

But the market works and too much government doesn’t. If socialism worked, Russia would have won the cold war.

 

[SoCalRC]

Myth? Just typing “medicare” and “waste” into google provides enough support for my basis: washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/07/23/LI2005072300409.html

No, you need to establish that non public entities of equal size are less wastefull. There is no evidence to suggest this is so. In fact, privitization has an terrible track record in the US over the last 30 years.

I’ve worked for the government in the military for almost 10 years and my mom was a public school teacher for 30 years. The gov’t wastes money like no other.

OK, hiring your family is questionable judgement, but I’ll still stick with large scale evidence, not a single evidentiary incident…

Seriously, the government wastes spectacular amounts of money (look at Iraq and Katrina). But despite the reputation, government provided services are historically proven to be more efficient than private enterprise equivilents. That is, big entities are always wasteful and inefficient, but private enterprise has the extra overhead of profit.

SoCal, ING pays 4.3% home.ingdirect.com/products/products.asp?s=OrangeSavingsAccount on it’s savings account and no one would put a retirement fund in a savings account.

4.3 is still less than 6, a massive change in 40 year valuation.

Social Security is a ponzi scheme. The gov’t takes my money as “insurance premiums” and uses it to pay current liabilities; a Ponzi scheme. The SS payments are comingled with the general funds, a practice that if it occurred in the business world would send people to prison. Ask a lawyer about a corporation mixing pension funds and general funds.

Better to ask a civics teacher! You seem a little confused. Social Security has been running a surplus, which it will need when boomers like me retire. By law, the surplus is invested in US Treasury Bonds. Questioning the safety and solvency of such bonds is technically against Federal law.

It is probably worth noting that while the GOP was squawking about “worthless IOUs”, campaign financial disclosure forms showed that a significant portion of President Bush’s personal weath is invested in the same “IOUs”.

If you are legitimately concerned about the long term stability of the US government and its ability to honor its debts, you should vote for fiscally sound government. In just one administration change we have gone from surplusses and a diminished national debt, to massive deficits and over 2 trillion dollars in additional debt.

If socialism worked, Russia would have won the cold war.

FWIW, the Soviet Union was communist, not socialist. And we have many socialized institutions in this country now. For example, I just saw a new campaign ad which mentions prostate cancer from a GOP presidential hopeful. Aside from a blatant falsehood (prostate cancer survival rates are virtually identical between the US and Canada), I found the whole thing ironic.

Basically, while on health insurance provided by New York state, the candidate has a cancer procedure developed by doctors in Europe. This procedure is normally paid for by Medicare, a Federal, single payer system that provides universal health care to a segment of our population. Yet the candidate thinks this is somehow “proof” that socialized medicine does not work…

 

[SoCalRC]

First, we need to realize that emergency medical treatment is provided for those who cannot pay their bills. Not all hospitals cover this, it is already provided.

But that system of care delivery results in poorer overall outcomes and dramtically higher costs. That is a big part of why the WHO ranks us 37th in quality of care and outcome, despite our ranking 1st in spending.

Also, the emergency health care system itself is in crisis. Meaning that it is increasingly difficult to get emergency care promptly, regardless of rather you have insurance or not.

So we have the worst of all worlds, lousy financial policy, lousy health care, and poor social justice in our obligation to God.

 

[Alphonsus_John]

SoCAL,

I have to respectfully bow out. I don’t agree w/ you at all and would like to back up my assertions, but I’m very tied up right now and do not have the time. I’d also like to point out that you haven’t really backed up any of your assertions either.

God love you.

John

 

[melensdad]

But that system of care delivery results in poorer overall outcomes and dramtically higher costs.

No argument from me that it is FAR from ideal, but it is there and I was simply setting the record straight.

However the real intent of this thread is to discuss “welfare” limits and promoting an expansion of welfare to the non-poor. Hence the “Does it have limits” in the thread title.

 

[SoCalRC]

No argument from me that it is FAR from ideal, but it is there and I was simply setting the record straight.

However the real intent of this thread is to discuss “welfare” limits and promoting an expansion of welfare to the non-poor.

Just to reiterate. I do respect the thought and effort you put into your posts. I, personally, just have trouble with quantifying the debate. Our largest blocks of spending are ‘defense’, social security, and medicare.

While all three can be argued to serve a common good, the spending does, disproportionately, go to Americans who are not low income or in poverty. So I don’t understand the point of arguing about the moral significance of expanding a program actually intended for the poor (like s-chip) into the middle class, since it is a miniscule percentage of the massive spending that we do to benefit wealthier Americans. Particularly when health care continues to outpace inflation and is increasingly becoming a threat to our overall economic health.

 

[Alphonsus_John]

No, you need to establish that non public entities of equal size are less wastefull. There is no evidence to suggest this is so. In fact, privitization has an terrible track record in the US over the last 30 years.

Back this up. Tell me that, adjusted to inflation, that plane tickets, phone prices, etc. are not less expensive after deregulation. Competition works.

Seriously, the government wastes spectacular amounts of money (look at Iraq and Katrina). But despite the reputation, government provided services are historically proven to be more efficient than private enterprise equivilents. That is, big entities are always wasteful and inefficient, but private enterprise has the extra overhead of profit.

Again, back that up. I seriously have never heard anyone actually believe a government agency is more efficient than a private entity at doing anything. A profit motive promotes efficiency, if nothing else.

4.3 is still less than 6, a massive change in 40 year valuation.

Nobody in there right mind would have a retirement portfolio that consists entirely of savings account. AAA rated bond funds get 6% returns w/out the volitility of stocks. I refuted your earlier (unsourced) assertions about interest rates. Private investing yields much better returns than the SS Ponzi scheme.

Better to ask a civics teacher! You seem a little confused. Social Security has been running a surplus, which it will need when boomers like me retire. By law, the surplus is invested in US Treasury Bonds. Questioning the safety and solvency of such bonds is technically against Federal law.

Again, back that up. SS funds are not maintained independently but are comingled in the general tresury. The FedGov is not subject to it’s own ERISA law en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Retirement_Income_Security_Act#Pension_funding when it comes to SS. If the gov’t actually followed fiduciary responsibility laws that it imposes on its citizens there would be TWO pie charts on your 1040 explanation book every year. A SS/Medicare one and one for everything else.

If you are legitimately concerned about the long term stability of the US government and its ability to honor its debts, you should vote for fiscally sound government. In just one administration change we have gone from surplusses and a diminished national debt, to massive deficits and over 2 trillion dollars in additional debt.

I agree, wholehearedly. However, you seem to be advocating more government with a welfare health plan. We need less government spending, not more. Less bureaucracy, not more. When was the last time the federal government reduced the size and scope of the any federal bureaucracy?

FWIW, the Soviet Union was communist, not socialist.

What’s the difference? The government controls (largely) the means of production.

I’ll respond to your last anecdote with one of my own. Many corporations in the UK provide private health plans as part of their pay package because the NHS is so bad these days.

IMHO, there is no competition in health care and that’s our problem. The laws are written that make 3rd party payers (insurance) have a big advantage over privately procured healthcare. Corp. financed insurance gets big tax breaks whereas the individual If there were less regulation and

I would probably agree w/ you that the gov’t has a place in providing health care (through private industry) to the poor. Gov’t can also perhaps provide a backstop to private industry to help people with massive, chronic, medical expenses. However, I do not feel it fair or right that EVERYONE, regardless of age, wealth, etc. should receive “free” healthcare from the gov’t.