E
elts1956
Guest
You are right. Naively, I thought prayer for the help and protection of Our Savior and His Blessed Mother was a given. Perhaps not.
- Status
A
Anrando
Guest
Please,
You can’t pick one out of all the various health issues I mentioned and use that to disprove what I said. Take them ALL together, not the one that fits your agenda. This is the very abuse of statistics I was referencing. Infant mortality is affected by the overall health of the mother. Using drugs, drinking, smoking, sexually transmitted diseases, endemic disease from the country of origin of the mother, etc all contribute to the number of low birth weight babies. How many third world babies are born in France exactly?
To play YOUR game, I don’t see where your statistics break down addicted persons by sex. A male drug addict must be removed from consideration re: prenatal health as they do not affect it. So what is the rate of drug addiction for women? And you may NOT assume it is 50% male and 50% female in both countries in the numbers listed. Also what constitutes addiction in your statistics? Habitual use of exactly what kinds of drugs, and are the criteria the same between the statistics collected for the USA and France… How big is the crack cocaine problem in France, or is their drug problem more opiate related or perhaps cannabis. It makes a difference you know.
Finally I don’t see you disputing the fact that low birth weight infants once delivered have a higher survival rate in the USA than France, and THAT is the real question…medical care under a socialized system being BETTER by definition, than that currently available in the USA.
Cancer survivors live longer in the USA, heart attack survival rates are significantly higher in the USA. Why did that Canadian minister come to New York for surgery if his own country’s socialized care is so much better. Why do you quote UN infant mortality as the cornerstone of your argument. Could it be because that is the ONLY statistic you can find that fits your political agenda?
Personally I would have to read the paper setting out the criteria used by the UN to make their decision of what constitutes “infant mortality”. What age after delivery is the cut off? Do still born or spontaneous abortions make the cut? If it is like their other “rankings” of countries then their methods are heavily weighted in favor of “socialist” countries. “Universal availability” and “local availability” are NOT acceptable criteria when judging “quality” of medical care available.
Nice try, but you can’t blow it off that easily.
W.Unland
R
rossum
Guest
I have shown that you have done inadequate research and have failed to properly check your sources in at least one instance. I chose not to waste my time looking at the rest of what you said.
Why should I take any notice of a claim that I have shown to be false? If you want to rely on falsehoods to support your position then you will have a difficult time convincing me.
You appear to want to damage the Catholic Church in Europe by importing inappropriate right wing American political positions. That can only damage the Catholic Church in Europe. We already have centralised government health care over here, and while it is not perfect we can see that it works a lot better than the system you used to have in America. We will have to see how the new American system works out in practice.
And the overall health of the mother is also affected by the quality of the health care available to her. Another reason why American infant mortality rates are as bad as they are.
rossum
A
anthony022071
Guest
No,this is about the principle of subsidiarity. It just so happens that Republican Party is supposed to uphold the conservative principle of constitutional,limited government,in order to safeguard our liberties and property from government intrusion and prevent government tyranny over the individual. This politically conservative principle is related to the Catholic principle of subsidiarity.
That just goes to show that Europeans have become used to socialistic government and complacently accept it as the right way of taking care of people. But Europeans ought to value their freedom as much as conservative Americans do. The Europeans will eventually reject socialism. It is starting to happen in England.
R
rossum
Guest
What does the Republican Party have to do with me? The three major parties I can vote for are Labour, the Liberal-Democrats and the Conservatives. All three of these parties support state-run healthcare through the NHS. Even Mrs Thatcher said, “The NHS is safe in our hands.” You are trying to import American attitudes into Europe where all that they will do is to damage the Catholic Church by associating it with extreme right wing fringe politics.
America is not the world. The Catholic Church has to deal with the world, not just with America.
The current coalition government of the United Kingdom (not just England) supports the NHS and has not the slightest intention of abolishing it. To do so would be electoral suicide. You appear to have little understanding of either UK or European politics. Wisely the Catholic bishops over here have chosen to ignore what you are saying.
rossum
C
CDNowak
Guest
Or there are other economic possibilities besides laissez-faire Capitalism and Post-national Socialism, especially since Capitalism only began to emerge around the time of the Reformation. The distributive ownership of productive property that was formulated as a response to * cannot be socialist as it emphasizes private property.
Capitalism (without qualifiers) results in the least ethical and richest owners oppressing the theoretically free but dispossessed workers, as happened markedly in the industrial revolution in the English speaking world. This, in turn, results with the vast majority having no more real control of productive property than if they were slaves or under a socialist economy.
Our current economy is a bastard mix: the wage earner is desperately trying to avoid the Servile state*, the poor are living in a Socialist state, and the rich enjoy the benefits of the Capitalist state. A minority of small owners and higher wage earners have manged to live out the Proprietary (aka distributist) state.*
R
rossum
Guest
C
CDNowak
Guest
I forgot to put in the footnote
, Based on Belloc’s analysis of Britain in “The Servile State” (1912).
B
Black_Rose
Guest
How arrogant, pretentious, and imperialist! Why should nations, particularly prosperous and stable nations of Western Europe, “ought” adopt your political values?
I am not going to yield any concessions to conservatives by adopting their definitions for certain words such as “freedom” or “tyranny”, which gives them the rhetorical edge. I do not see why the concept of “freedom”, defined by conservatives, is of significant value. Perhaps, I would value it if it included “freedom from want” as defined by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in his “Four Freedoms” speech. But I find the conservative usage of the word “freedom” an exercise in rhetorical dishonesty and deception because the exploits the fact that the word generally has a positive connotation but lacks a rigorous definition that is universally accepted. Since “freedom” can adopt multiple definitions that adopts differing perceptions of the concept, it just becomes a blunt, rhetorical instrument because it describes many things and thus lacks any precision because its definition is not restrictive but inclusive.
At least Friedrich von Hayek lucidly delineated the differences between “freedom” and “liberty” in his* Constitution of Liberty* to avoid any potential for misinterpretation and confusion. He explicitly defined “liberty” merely as the non-interference in human affairs or the absence of coercion. He also states that it does not guarantee any positive outcomes or grant one with any degree of control over one’s circumstances. In this case, liberty is just a principle for human conduct, not an affirmation of the desirability of any state of reality nor any ethical mandate or compulsion to render such states into reality. Although von Hayek’s conception of liberty is inherently passive and would presumably tolerate many sins of omission, he argues that societies that embrace the principle of liberty, by adopting and nurturing a market economy, would be conducive to prosperity and innovation in the long run because it supposedly allocates resources more efficiently and allows inventive people to pursue and profit from their ideas.
As for me, I value my health, financial security, and living in a peaceful, friendly environment more than “freedom”.
Another poster has pointed the same thing rossum noted about imposing American right-wing anti-welfare state views in Europe. Why hasn’t the Church explicitly condemned universal health care systems in Canada and Western European? Does the Church want to alienate a continent (Europe) with 830 million people and a strong embrace for the welfare state?
B
Black_Rose
Guest
Actually, you are the one making statistical claims (or claims that can be tested with statistics), not Rossum.
For example, you initially said:
It is not rossum’s burden of proof to disprove this, it is your burden to provide reputable statistics for your claims. And you used the word HUGE (with the letters capitalized for emphasis) but you do not even provide any quantitative support (using concrete numbers) to justify using your qualitative (and relative) wording.
“Universal availability” and “local availability” are certainly acceptable metrics “of medical care available”. What good would be “best health care” would be if would would not have access to it due to its exorbitant prices? Your questions seem like pointless caviling and irrelevant. Again, the null hypothesis is that pregnant woman’s health among developed countries do not significantly differ. It is your burden to show that they do instead of just asserting it here.
Am I supposed to feel sympathetic or sorry for you for allegedly being a “slave” to the “government”? What about all those human beings who lack access to clean water, food, health care, and shelter in underdeveloped countries?
Why the use of the word “SOCIAL JUSTICE”? Could you tell me of left-wing poster in any thread from this forum who uses the word “social justice” consistently? And could you actually provide evidence that welfare recipients actually behave the way you describe them such as watching Oprah?
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
:clapping: Well said.
N
NEWCATHOLICJEFF
Guest
The position of the Bishops on this issue is the same as their position on the Pro-Life movement. The way I see it these are not a left or right stance they are a moral stance. Christ did not say hand over your jacket, as long as you have a spare. I realize that we have limitations and that is what the secular government does, but from the Churches perspective they have to take the high road.
As much as I agree with the Churches position and advocacy on these Social issues. I won’t vote for them. I will vote according to the Pro-Life agenda, but that is because I am not taking the moral high ground.
I am selfish. I am looking out for my family, my neighborhood, my city, my country, not all mankind. The fact that I am selfish does not negate the obligation of the Church to teach according to Christ’s teaching.
A
anthony022071
Guest
I didn’t say that it did. You were the one who brought up the Republican Party.
The desire to be free of government interence in one’s personal life is not only an American attitude. It is natural to anyone who values their freedom and is wary of the expansion of government powers over the citizens. Only someone who doesn’t value freedom would identify this attitude with extreme right wing fringe politics.
Margaret Thatcher was against socialism. If she safeguarded the government health care system it was because she wasn’t willing to dump people who were already dependent upon it. People need to be gradually weaned off of it.
The Catholic Church is concerned with human freedom as well as human material welfare.
The bishops ought to know better than to give to the government responsibilities that belong to the Church and to local communities.
The government health care system will eventually be abolished since it provides shabby services at long waiting periods,denys treatment to people who are considered too expensive,and because there will not be enough tax money to sustain it. Public sentiment is turning against it,if the horror stories about it in English newspapers are any indicator. It also has to go because God will not allow a system that provides abortions and lets people die to be perpetuated much longer.
A
anthony022071
Guest
The position of the bishops ought to be guided by prudential judgement in regard to the proper ordering of responsibilities. No government can be trusted with taking care of people’s personal needs. Until socialistic ideas began to spead in the mid-1800’s,Catholic bishops never considered it the responsibility of the government,or even of society as a whole,to take care of the poor,needy and sick. It was always the proper responsibility of individual persons,families,parishes,monasteries and convents.
That’s not a matter of being selfish,those are proper loyalties for an individual man. It is impossible for us to be responsible for all mankind.
B
Black_Rose
Guest
Give me a history lesson. I doubt it would be of similar quality to the writings of Henry CK Liu. Ok, tell me of a historical society that has thrived (defined by its material welfare and social stability) because of its adherence to “subsidiarity” (assign “proper responsibility of individual persons,families,parishes,monasteries and convents” [or similar religious institutions]) and the promotion of private charity instead of welfare statism.
Are they any historic basis for the values you advocate? Do you have ANY evidence that shows the private charity is more effective at the remediation of poverty?
R
rossum
Guest
I was responding to a post of yours in which you mentioned the Republican Party:
You have no idea how politics works in Europe. Any party that tried to stand in the UK on a platform similar to that of the Republican Party in America would get slaughtered in the polls. Far too much military spending and far too little spending on social issues. You are attempting to drag down the Catholic Church in Europe by making it into a partisan political organisation for what in European terms is a fringe party. America is not the world and not all of us think like Americans. We have different histories and different priorities.
She was indeed against Socialism and she was also a good politician who could recognise electoral suicide when she saw it. You are trying to persuade Catholic Bishops to go where she didn’t. That is not a wise thing to do.
In England the officially established Church is the Church of England. In Scotland it is the Church of Scotland. In neither case is it the Catholic Church. Your ignorance of how things are organised here is leading you into error. The Catholic Bishops here know how things are organised here and have wisely chosen to reject your advice.
Do not believe everything that you read in the newspapers. See the many posts on this site about how the newspapers treated the child abuse scandal. Newspapers have agendas, and the Daily Mail and Sun do not hide their agendas very carefully.
God lets every single human die. Why should he make an exception now?
rossum
C
CDNowak
Guest
B
Black_Rose
Guest
From the wikipedia entry
Sounds like Schumpeter (famous for “creative destruction”)
(again wikipedia)
Schumpeter made a correct prediction for Europe. But Belloc’s prediction of a servile state, at least in Europe, has not come to fruition.
C
CDNowak
Guest
A
anthony022071
Guest
I mentioned it in response to your claim that I wanted the Catholic Church to follow the political program of the Republican Party. You’re identifying the disapproval of socialistic means to help people with mere political ideology. It is about principles of natural law and prudential judgement,from which conservative ideology comes. political ideology. Does the support of government health care come from principles of natural law and prudential judgement,or from pragmatism?
Not if it could persuade the electorate that it is wrong for the government to be doing what neighbors,families,communities and churches should be doing. The people of the British Isles have always cherished their freedom and self-sufficiency.
- Status