Judge rules Obamacare unconstitutional, endangering coverage for 20 million

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stephen_C
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pnewton said:
it must be from the love we have of the poor, and their needs,
Click to expand...
We can disagree with ACA on misuse of taxpayer money and government encroachment on freedoms can’t it?

Not wanting to encourage the poor to continue dependence on the govt does reflect love of the poor doesn’t it?
 
robertmidwest said:
We can disagree with ACA on misuse of taxpayer money and government encroachment on freedoms can’t it?
Click to expand...
Freedom? What freedom is at issue, apart from not wanting to pay taxes? Because if the issue is just money, then whether greed is greater than one’s compassion is a question between that soul and God.
 
robertmidwest said:
40.png
pnewton:
it must be from the love we have of the poor, and their needs,
Click to expand...
We can disagree with ACA on misuse of taxpayer money and government encroachment on freedoms can’t it?

Not wanting to encourage the poor to continue dependence on the govt does reflect love of the poor doesn’t it?
Click to expand...
Of course, we shouldn’t let the poor get sick or starve while requiring them to work to get healthcare benefits or food stamps. Maybe there aren’t very many jobs where they live or there isn’t adequate public transportation to get to jobs, etc.
 
The freedom to live our Catholic Faith without being an accessory to murder?

Source:

www.catholic.com

The Lie of "Necessary" Abortions

The only way this analogy could work would be if it could be shown that abortion is a “necessary” service. The Church recognizes that abortion is no...
www.catholic.com www.catholic.com

How can I respond to someone who equates taxpayer funding of abortion to taxpayer funding of other things he doesn’t support but thinks are “necessary”?

Answer​

The only way this analogy could work would be if it could be shown that abortion is a “necessary” service. The Church recognizes that abortion is not “necessary” but is a moral evil:
Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law ( Catechism 2271).
Click to expand...
In Christifideles Laici , St. John Paul II affirmed that the right to life is a fundamental human right and the necessary basis upon which we are to fight for all other personal rights:
The inviolability of the person, which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life . Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights—for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture—is false and illusory if the right to life , the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination (38).
Click to expand...
 
Since when is wanting to keep more of my own hard-earned money “greed” and other people demanding more of my money considered “compassion”?
 
pnewton said:
40.png
robertmidwest:
We can disagree with ACA on misuse of taxpayer money and government encroachment on freedoms can’t it?
Click to expand...
Freedom? What freedom is at issue, apart from not wanting to pay taxes? Because if the issue is just money, then whether greed is greater than one’s compassion is a question between that soul and God.
Click to expand...
First, there is no compassion involved in taxation, regardless of how the money is used. Charity comes from a free choice to give of one’s own.
Second, it is not necessarily greed to choose to keep what one has earned. It is not compassion to require others to give of their own property.

If we are going to compel people to give to others of the own property, let’s not pretend anyone is acting out of charity or compassion. Let’s just be honest and say that government has the power to do so
 
JonNC said:
If we are going to compel people to give to others of the own property, let’s not pretend anyone is acting out of charity or compassion. Let’s just be honest and say that government has the power to do so
Click to expand...
Sure. I’ll say it. Government has the power to do so. That’s not even in debate. The power to tax, in various ways, is one of the enumerated powers.

And then it follows inexorably that government has the power to spend.
 
Inisfallen said:
40.png
JonNC:
If we are going to compel people to give to others of the own property, let’s not pretend anyone is acting out of charity or compassion. Let’s just be honest and say that government has the power to do so
Click to expand...
Sure. I’ll say it. Government has the power to do so. That’s not even in debate. The power to tax, in various ways, is one of the enumerated powers.

And then it follows inexorably that government has the power to spend.
Click to expand...
Then it isn’t charity, it isn’t out of compassion, it isn’t in response to Christ’s call that we care for the least of His children. It is compulsory.
 
But the power to tax is an enumerated power, is it not? And what is collected must be spent, no? And the Constitution quite clearly authorizes spending for the general welfare.
 
Power to tax? Yes. The power to spend on the enumerated powers, the general welfare as defined by those enumerated powers.
The general welfare clause was not intended to be a carte Blanche for spending on anything it deemed general welfare.
 
LastStand said:
Since when is wanting to keep more of my own hard-earned money “greed” and other people demanding more of my money considered “compassion”?
Click to expand...
The answer to the first question is, “Since the beginning of money.” The answer to the second is that the question is loaded and unanswerable, or if there must be an answer, it would be, “It is not considered compassion. Duh. Anymore straw men?”
 
robertmidwest said:
Forcing someone to buy insurance.
Forcing an employer to provide BC or cover abortions in their insurance plan.
Click to expand...
That second one is a good point. Mandating specific insurance plans does limit freedom. Without doubt one can morally argue that some plans to help those in need are moral ans some immoral.

Forcing someone to buy anything does limit freedom, if it is done. That is why the path of a tax was taken instead, for the uninsured. I really have no problem taxing people for services that they would have to be provided with upon need.

Speaking of moral plans. I would consider it better to have the that tax sent to the local government (not the state) that is having to fork up the money for emergency services and necessary medical care for the indigent. It is rather stupid to tax them federally through income tax and yet require local governments to cover indigent medical care.
 
The only strawman I see is the claim that keeping more of my own money for my purposes is greed.
 
JonNC said:
First, there is no compassion involved in taxation, regardless of how the money is used. Charity comes from a free choice to give of one’s own.
Click to expand...
There is no charity it paying taxes, but our response to it is. Charity isn’t giving (freely or otherwise). Charity is a virtue that we have (or don’t) in us. We can see charity manifest in freely giving, but that giving is not the actual virtue. Likewise, we can see charity (or not) in the way we speak of the poor and our attitude toward them. This latter part concerns me, especially at this time of year.
 
pnewton said:
There is no charity it paying taxes, but our response to it is. Charity isn’t giving (freely or otherwise). Charity is a virtue that we have (or don’t) in us. We can see charity manifest in freely giving, but that giving is not the actual virtue. Likewise, we can see charity (or not) in the way we speak of the poor and our attitude toward them. This latter part concerns me, especially at this time of year.
Click to expand...
Post of the year. Thank you.
 
pnewton said:
40.png
JonNC:
First, there is no compassion involved in taxation, regardless of how the money is used. Charity comes from a free choice to give of one’s own.
Click to expand...
There is no charity it paying taxes, but our response to it is. Charity isn’t giving (freely or otherwise). Charity is a virtue that we have (or don’t) in us. We can see charity manifest in freely giving, but that giving is not the actual virtue. Likewise, we can see charity (or not) in the way we speak of the poor and our attitude toward them. This latter part concerns me, especially at this time of year.
Click to expand...
The latter part concerns me, too. The legacy of the so-called Great Society programs and those that have followed is inter-generational poverty, the destruction of the nuclear family, particularly in the black community, and an explosion of the out of wedlock birth rates.
That doesn’t sound like compassion or charity to me.
 
Since we forgot about the common good perhaps?
This is a part of the Catechism,and as usual ,it doesn t end in the quote but continues:
THE COMMON GOOD

*[_1905](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/1905.htm’) In keeping with the social nature of man, the good of each individual is necessarily related to the common good, which in turn can be defined only in reference to the human person:_

Do not live entirely isolated, having retreated into yourselves, as if you were already justified, but gather instead to seek the common good together.25

1906 By common good is to be understood "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily."26 The common good concerns the life of all. It calls for prudence from each, and even more from those who exercise the office of authority. It consists of three essential elements :
_907 First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as "the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion."27_

1908 Second, the common good requires the social well-being and development of the group itself. Development is the epitome of all social duties. Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on

And it goes on.
Many of us are lucky that health is somehow covered and very very honestly…it is a real relief to know that wherever we are there is that hospital,that big or small health center that will look after us.
It doesn t feel like charity honestly not even compassion,but as the least we can do for each other . And this isn t judging anyone ,just sharing.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top