A “welfare state” is a socialist state.Just curious, but as Catholics we are supposed to support the poor and, in fact, go out of our way to do so. We are to give freely and openly.
But is there a limit to this when we apply it to government and modern society?
For example, most Catholics have no problem with some of our taxes going to Aid to Mothers with Dependent Children, Food Stamps for the poor, etc. But what do we define as POOR and what is a reasonable share of taxes to give?
Is it reasonable to apply a “means” test to the poor?
For example, President Bush recently ‘vetoed’ a piece of legislation that was supposed to have paid for health care for children in poverty. The bill ACTUALLY would have expanded health care to cover many children well above the poverty line and would have reached up into the middle class families. This would have been a real and dramatic increase in the expansion of the welfare state and the beginning of society paying for medical treatment, but not in a socialized medicine system.
Is it reasonable to oppose such things and place limits on what government “charity” is provided to us, by us?
i ia oe. Aloha nui.Food and water are more necessary than a TB immunization. Why do you have to pay for them? Just because you “need” something to live doesn’t make it a right. It makes it a necessity. Rights are things that come with a responsibility attached (right to vote, responsibility to be informed). Necessities are things you need to live.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.
I believe the whole question is not one of relativism, but one of asking if it is moral to expand government “charity” in the form of welfare to those who are not in need.. . . I don’t understand the point of arguing about the moral significance of expanding a program actually intended for the poor . . . into the middle class, since it is a miniscule percentage . . .
Water and sanitation are closely regulated (because of past abuses). We’ve dabbled in deregulating power, and it got us Enron.Food and water are more necessary than a TB immunization. Why do you have to pay for them? Just because you “need” something to live doesn’t make it a right. It makes it a necessity. Rights are things that come with a responsibility attached (right to vote, responsibility to be informed). Necessities are things you need to live.
In terms of quality of care, successful outcome, life expentency, etc., US heathcare ranks 37th. Behind virtually all other industrialized nations. We rank 1st in total spending and per capita spending. In other words, we spend the most money to have things like the most people uninsured and the worst infant mortality rate.Back this up. Tell me that, adjusted to inflation, that plane tickets, phone prices, etc. are not less expensive after deregulation. Competition works.
Funny, Blackwater is a heck of a lot more expensive per mission and boot on the ground than the US military, and seems to be nothing but a complete geo political disaster to boot…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.
Ah yes, a sea of 16,000 a year investors managing their individual portfolios. And, if they make the mistake of retiring or becoming disabled during a .com type stock market decline?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.
Now that we are clearly off topic. . .Water and sanitation are closely regulated
That’s only useful assuming an HMO will even cover you, or give you an insurance plan at a reasonable rate. The rates quoted to me are generally somewhere around $500-$750 a month with $3000 deductible and I’m a 27year old non-smoking individual.\ least with HMOs you can switch. With the NHS you’re stuck.
There are lots of ways to help those less fortunate besides universal health care. I am totally opposed to it from personal experience. Look where many people from other countries come for health care when they can’t get it where they live. All that system does is to pull it down to the lowest common denominator. They nobody gets good care.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”.
No, it’s not.That’s only useful assuming an HMO will even cover you, or give you an insurance plan at a reasonable rate. The rates quoted to me are generally somewhere around $500-$750 a month with $3000 deductible and I’m a 27year old non-smoking individual.
I pay $1250 a month towards old medical bills. It’s more than my rent and food combined. Generally it is 65-75% of my takehome pay from the jobs I may have at any one time.
HMOs and PPO’s may very well be quite delightful, but I would never know because they simply refuse to cover me at a reasonable rate. I could go on medicare/medicaid, but that requires me to become jobless, quit paying rent and buying food and more or less become homeless. That’s not exactly a good solution.
I get the debt adjusted every year, but it sort of rolls, I get an additional $15000 of debt a year essentially. Bankrupcy wouldn’t really do much, because my debt doesn’t ever stop really, it’s not like I can stop taking my prescriptions.No, it’s not.
Have you talked to an attorney about bankruptcy and/or to the hospital about adjusting your debt? What is your total debt? Could you join an Insurance pool? What are your medical bills for, (if you don’t mind my asking)? There are options depending on your work, etc.
If you want to PM me, I can try to help best I can.
No it’s not. The first Christians had, and Christian monastic orders have always had, forms of Christian socialism or communism. What the Church rejects is *"**the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times **with “communism” or “socialism.” *
Catholics are morally free to disagree with your opinion.The role of government is not to be a nannie. Charity should come from individuals via their faith communities.
I discussed it in post 31 and everybody ignored me.I have to admit that I am sorry I even brought up this topic because it appears that nobody wants to discuss the actual topic of the thread.
There are working poor who would be out on the streetJust curious, but as Catholics we are supposed to support the poor and, in fact, go out of our way to do so. We are to give freely and openly.
But is there a limit to this when we apply it to government and modern society?
For example, most Catholics have no problem with some of our taxes going to Aid to Mothers with Dependent Children, Food Stamps for the poor, etc. But what do we define as POOR and what is a reasonable share of taxes to give?
Is it reasonable to apply a “means” test to the poor?
For example, President Bush recently ‘vetoed’ a piece of legislation that was supposed to have paid for health care for children in poverty. The bill ACTUALLY would have expanded health care to cover many children well above the poverty line and would have reached up into the middle class families. This would have been a real and dramatic increase in the expansion of the welfare state and the beginning of society paying for medical treatment, but not in a socialized medicine system.
Is it reasonable to oppose such things and place limits on what government “charity” is provided to us, by us?
I totally agree with what you wrote, but the question is not directed at supporting programs for the poor, or the working poor.There are working poor who would be out on the street
if programs like AFDC and Food Stamps etc were cut. It is the kids who would suffer the most.
My sister worked and had to support five children for years because her husband skipped out and gave no child support etc.
The state at the time wasn’t much help in looking for him either.
I don’t know what all she got but she got rent subsidy on an apartment for one.
I know the state goes after absconders more now.
A Christian thing do is to support Marriage Counseling and job training for those who are able.
Yes.I sometimes wonder if this question is even relevant. In the US, our social safety net for those within 200% of the poverty level is relatively miniscule. It is handy to think of social security and medicare as programs for the ‘poor’, but both programs principally benefit 300% of the poverty level and up.
On the flip side, we spend massive amounts of money on corporate welfare. The corporations, in turn, have lots of money to spend on the political process. Which seems to perpetuate the system of aide.
… (removed for length -WL)
The sad part is that we have plenty of evidence to suggest that making a real investment in our weakest members actually does often largely pay for itself (unlike tax cuts for the wealthiest). Just pick a prison inmate at random and compare what we invested, as a society, in him/her from 0-17. Then compare that with the cost of long term incarceration.
We do both and in vast amounts.Just curious, but do we** “spend massive amounts of money on corporate welfare”** or do we simply allow tax breaks/tax credits for corporations that do specific things that the government is using the tax code to entice them to do?
.
It’s actually a sin to underpay for the value of your workers or to enact policies which ensure workers wages will be artificially lowered.If you have a society where a large part of the workforce is, by necessity, involved in low paying semi-skilled work, then those people obviosly aren’t going to be ‘free’ in the economic sense.
Many workers can’t afford the full cost of health insurance for them and their families. Many can’t afford the full cost of private education for their children. Their wages simply aren’t high enough, and somebody has to do those jobs… otherwise no economy. So without any state services, or at least state funding for services they could:
Get ill and die due to lack of medical treatment (like 1 in 5 Americans). The uninsured breadwinner dies of cancer and the rest of the family becomes homelesss. Yup that’s got to be good.
Not be able to educate their children - who are the next generation of workers - also reducing the pool of people who will be able to go on to more important work. Basically less doctors and engineers because only the top 10% of the population can afford to send their kids to college, or even high school.
And if it were up to the libertarians then there would be no minimum wage, overtime rates, or labour laws of any type. So the low income worker who is already struggling will have no spending power - less customers for the purchase goods and services - and won’t be able to pay for the essentials. To a certain extent we rely on others having a reasonable standard of living. You can’t have a large number of people with illiterate children and no spending power just so that business can make some short term saving on labour costs and taxes. That’s bad and we all lose.