Public healthcare is not anti Catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter hellopeople
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
markomalley said:
OK, so you’re saying that you have something other than a unwritten constitution that is compiled from a thousand years of laws, decrees, treaties, and court decision?
Click to expand...
Ahem, is this a typo?
Parliamentary Sovereignty (which consists of the Crown, the House of Commons, and the House of Lords). In the US, sovereignty explicitly rests with the people
Click to expand...
You seem to be misunderstanding what Parliamentary Supremacy/Soverieignty means - and the Crown relates to Parliamentary Supremacy how>
Your concept evolved over the past 1,000 years. The Crown has relinquished power starting with the Magna Carta and moving forward. But the power originated with the Crown…not with the people. We explicitly rejected that form of government and established one where the government is (supposed to be) the servant, not the ruler.
In fact, you just validated everything I have said. You don’t have any written “supreme law of the land” that limits the size and scope of your government. Parliament can do as Parliament will do
Click to expand...
Tell me things I don’t know lol…the legislature is freer in the UK than the US.
Well, our Constitution is a living document: it changes through an amendment process that is built into Article V. It has been changed 17 times since its inception (the first 10 amendments were made at one fell swoop).
Click to expand...
But interpretations change how it is applied, not the content thereof
Click to expand...
No, the interpretation determines in a very real way what the content is.
But is there any supreme law of the land in the UK that would prevent Parliament from re-enacting some law like the “Popery Act of 1709”? (the body of statutes would have to be purged from other laws that dismantled that one, but that could all be done in one statute, couldn’t it?)
Click to expand...
As you know, since there is no entrenchment and Parliament is supreme, Parliament can pass any law it likes. It doesn’t mean that politically it would be possible. There are various constitutional statutes that would make the passage of a law like that very difficult, but not impossible. There are mechanisms in the US that would eventually allow passage of statutes like that as well:shrug:
 
markomalley said:
You didn’t note the rest of my comment.* I full well recognize that your monarch is virtually a figurehead in modern times

*Since you claim I’m wrong, why don’t you tell me what’s right.
Click to expand...
I did note it, but it didn’t alter the nature of your mistake. I don’t just claim you’re wrong, you are wrong.
 
Socialism in general is anti-church. We are called to charity. When the government steps in and does the responsibilities of the church and the people, that source of grace is denied to us. A bigger problem is that people become reliant on the government, replacing the bonds of family and faith. Religion becomes irrelevant for many people.
 
Any rational understanding of Christian charity mandates that in a society as wealthy as the United States, everyone, including the least of our brothers, should have access to food, housing, education and, yes, health care. That is my opinion, but more importantly, it is the inerrant teaching of Pope John XXIII. In his encyclical Peace on Earth, health care is listed among those basic rights flowing from the sanctity and dignity of human life.

However, some here have said that it is somehow un-Christian for the government to be the one to provide that health care, that we should instead trust the “free market.” But the sad fact is that the free market has been given every chance to provide quality, affordable health care for everyone and it has failed miserably. As everyone knows, there are upwards of 50 million Americans without health care and many millions more who, though insured, are vulnerable to the depredations of profit-driven health insurers, such as being denied life-saving treatments or having their coverage canceled once they fall sick.

Just as it is insensate to advocate for a private army, police force, or courts of justice, one can hardly justify placing this basic necessity of life in the hands of private corporations, entities that admittedly have gain for their shareholders as their one and only consideration. That is why, instead of tinkering with the current system, as Obamacare does, we should abolish it altogether and institute a system similar to those of the United Kingdom and Canada. Of course, many falsehoods have been spread about health care in those countries, but despite longer waits for some elective procedures, their systems are objectively better than the American one as measured by concrete standards, such as infant mortality and longevity, and they accomplish that at a fraction of the cost. As to abortion, Obamacare, besides being insufficient in the way of reform, has been deliberately tainted with it, but it is an absolute mistake to conflate pre-natal infanticide with universal health care; regardless of what type of health care system is in place, abortion should simply be treated as murder if done for free, and as murder-for-hire if there is a payment involved.

Another objection to mandatory universal health care is made on the grounds of individualism. According to this line of thought, everyone should have the right to decide whether or not he or she wants to pay for health care. Besides the obvious consideration that if some are allowed to opt out, the system would not be universal by definition, we should also realize that the whole mindset that opposes universal health care on principle is based on individualism. And individualism is absolutely not a Christian concept. In fact, it has been defined as a heresy by the Catholic Church, alongside a whole group of ideas, generally known as “Americanism.” This may be surprising and even outrageous to the misinformed, but it is a clear teaching of Pope Leo XIII from his 1898 encyclical Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, and certainly in line with the great corpus of Catholic thought dating back to the days of Our Lord and Savior. I would respectfully suggest that American Catholics enamored with the point of view found in the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal read the above-mentioned document instead.

As to Christian Scientists and others who might object to universal health care on religious grounds, I wish to be clear: I give that no consideration whatsover. I do not care what adherents of a false faith think about this issue and I submit that Catholics should strive not to the beliefs of such people affect social policy. In fact, I pray that this might the final blow against Mary Baker Eddy’s rapidly shrinking sect, and that the Holy Spirit will move many of its members towards a true understanding of the Christian faith in the Catholic Church.

In short, universal health care is an essentially Christian and especially Catholic ideal. Those who have misgivings about it should humbly reconsider their position in light of the teachings of the Catholic Church and remember that, yes, we are indeed our brother’s keeper.
 
. “**Timcfc” made an utterly ridiculous claim that since we have public roads, a military, etc., that we are partially socialist and are being inconsistent in not supporting nationalized healthcare. **Frankly, nationalized healthcare is not in our Constitution.

What part of that is an utterly ridiculous claim,they are examples of socialism.
 
timcfc said:
. “**Timcfc” made an utterly ridiculous claim that since we have public roads, a military, etc., that we are partially socialist and are being inconsistent in not supporting nationalized healthcare. **Frankly, nationalized healthcare is not in our Constitution.

What part of that is an utterly ridiculous claim,they are examples of socialism.
Click to expand...
So let me see if I have that straight: any government functionality whatsoever is Socialist?

So, shall I then conclude that one has a simple choice if one is to be consistent: support utter anarchy or support socialism?
 
markomalley said:
So let me see if I have that straight: any government functionality whatsoever is Socialist?

So, shall I then conclude that one has a simple choice if one is to be consistent: support utter anarchy or support socialism?
Click to expand...
You might like to read this.

Socialism has held the world in its grip since the beginning of the 20th century. People everywhere fell for the seductive allure of governmental security. Now on the eve of the 21st century, people all over the world are considering letting go of the socialist nightmare. But tragically, one of the peoples on earth who are refusing to let go of socialism are the Americans.

I recently received a letter from the head of a Belgian freedom organization in which he suggested that we should give up on our fight to end socialism in America. He said that Americans would never give up the welfare state way of life. He advised me instead to spend all of our efforts on freedom in Eastern Europe because in that way, the Eastern Europeans could provide a model of freedom that the Americans could imitate.

Nevertheless, the Belgian’s observation was terribly discomforting. Because deep inside of me, I knew that he might be right — Americans might never let go of socialism. Why? Well, before I address that question, let us look at some examples of how Americans refuse to let go of their socialist economic system.

The first example is public schooling. It always shocks Americans when I inform them that free and compulsory schooling is one of the ten “planks” of the Communist Manifesto and that public schooling is a key aspect of the Soviet, Chinese, and Cuban ways of life. Yet, even after discovering these little-known facts, they continue to believe that public schooling in those countries is socialism while public schooling in the United States is free enterprise. Let’s examine the principles of public schooling.

The public schooling system, like all coercive redistributive programs, is founded on the Marxian concept of “from each according to ability, to each according to need.” The political system is used to plunder the wealth and savings of everyone, even those who don’t have children, to pay for the schooling of other people’s children.

The plain truth is that public schooling is also the absolutely perfect embodiment of the socialist concept of central planning. The “education” of each child — from teachers to textbooks to curricula to time in school — is planned for him by a central political agency, either on a local, state, or national basis. The government, not the parents, controls the “education” of the child.

The tragic failure of socialism in public schooling is as well known as the failure of socialism all over the world. Yet, Americans just won’t let go. What is the common answer to the horrific results of public schooling? Plunder the citizenry and distribute the loot to an even greater extent!

But the real tragedy is that so many freedom devotees in America also won’t let go of socialism. All too often, their answer to the problem involves a futile attempt to make socialism work more efficiently. They want competition in public schools, vouchers, and other schemes which have the ultimate effect of leaving the socialist system intact, reformed, and more efficient.

What is the answer to socialism in public schools? Freedom! Why not separate school and state in the same way that our ancestors separated church and state? The Founding Fathers trusted freedom in religious activities, and look how blessed we are that government no longer subsidizes or controls our religious activities (or that of our children). How would you instead like a voucher system with public and private churches? How about competition between public and private churches? If anybody should trust freedom in education, it should be the Americans who have such a wonderful legacy of religious liberty.

A second example of socialism in America: Social Security. Having come into existence as part of the New Deal in the 1930s (the earlier Americans would have nothing to do with it!), the Social Security system is also founded on stealing. Here, the loot is forcibly taken, again under the guise of “taxation,” from the young and given to the old. The recipients always rationalize the process by convincing themselves that the money, which was plundered from them was retained in some type of investment pool which earned interest. They block out of their minds that the politicians spent their money years ago and that they are now engaging in the classic socialist scheme of using the political process to take from those who have and give the loot to others.

A tragedy again concerns many freedom devotees. What is the all too common answer to Social Security? Reduce Social Security taxes! What? Reduce Social Security taxes? Why reduce Social Security taxes? Isn’t this just another attempt to make the socialism of Social Security operate more efficiently?

What is the solution to Social Security? Eliminate Social Security taxes by repealing this evil and immoral scheme! And then constitutionally prohibit it from ever being passed again! Freedom is the solution!

What will then happen to the elderly in a system in which there is no Social Security? Probably the same thing that happened in America for its first 150 years when the American people refused to use the political process to steal from others. Some people saved for their old age. Others depended on their children for help. Others relied on friends, neighbors, or private relief agencies. Those Americans had faith and trust in freedom and in the caring nature of others. They did not believe that politicians, and their bureaucratic minions, were the only good and caring people in American society. And the result was not only the most prosperous society in history but also the most charitable society in history.
 
timcfc said:
You might like to read this.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I did enjoy it. But it’s usually considered good form to attribute the articles you post. In this case, the attribution should go to fff.org/freedom/0990a.asp

I’m not a libertarian, I am a limited government conservative that strongly believes in the federal structure of government as was established for this country. There is a difference.

Libertarians don’t, in my experience, support anything other than utter minimalist government at any level.

Those who agree with my point of view believe in a strictly limited federal government with more functions being accomplished as the level of government becomes more localized (from state, county, and finally the local community).

I do sympathize with the libertarians in that I believe that society should have a more active role in providing social services and that the government’s role should be limited to facilitating society’s role, not replacing it (acknowledging the truly exceptional case where need outstrips social bodies’ capability…such as the Mississippi River flood in the 90s or the gulf coast hurricanes in 2005). Of course, no true libertarian would sign up for that.

While I appreciate that you provided that article, it doesn’t fully reflect my views. If you read Catholic social doctrine, you will get a pretty good handle on my positions. Pay particular attention to the importance of the principles of solidarity versus subsidiarity and participation. You should fully grasp those concepts before dealing with the principles of the “universal destination of goods” and the “common good.” (Most people read those two and stop reading…thus giving them a distorted view of what the Church actually teaches).

Hope that helps clarify matters.
 
markomalley said:
Thanks. I did enjoy it. But it’s usually considered good form to attribute the articles you post. In this case, the attribution should go to fff.org/freedom/0990a.asp

I’m not a libertarian, I am a limited government conservative that strongly believes in the federal structure of government as was established for this country. There is a difference.

Libertarians don’t, in my experience, support anything other than utter minimalist government at any level.

Those who agree with my point of view believe in a strictly limited federal government with more functions being accomplished as the level of government becomes more localized (from state, county, and finally the local community).

I do sympathize with the libertarians in that I believe that society should have a more active role in providing social services and that the government’s role should be limited to facilitating society’s role, not replacing it (acknowledging the truly exceptional case where need outstrips social bodies’ capability…such as the Mississippi River flood in the 90s or the gulf coast hurricanes in 2005). Of course, no true libertarian would sign up for that.

While I appreciate that you provided that article, it doesn’t fully reflect my views. If you read Catholic social doctrine, you will get a pretty good handle on my positions. Pay particular attention to the importance of the principles of solidarity versus subsidiarity and participation. You should fully grasp those concepts before dealing with the principles of the “universal destination of goods” and the “common good.” (Most people read those two and stop reading…thus giving them a distorted view of what the Church actually teaches).

Hope that helps clarify matters.
Click to expand...
Excellent post.
I will read the Catholic social doctrine to find out about your views.
 
timcfc said:
You might like to read this.

Socialism has held the world in its grip since the beginning of the 20th century. People everywhere fell for the seductive allure of governmental security. Now on the eve of the 21st century, people all over the world are considering letting go of the socialist nightmare. But tragically, one of the peoples on earth who are refusing to let go of socialism are the Americans.

I recently received a letter from the head of a Belgian freedom organization in which he suggested that we should give up on our fight to end socialism in America. He said that Americans would never give up the welfare state way of life. He advised me instead to spend all of our efforts on freedom in Eastern Europe because in that way, the Eastern Europeans could provide a model of freedom that the Americans could imitate.

Nevertheless, the Belgian’s observation was terribly discomforting. Because deep inside of me, I knew that he might be right — Americans might never let go of socialism. Why? Well, before I address that question, let us look at some examples of how Americans refuse to let go of their socialist economic system.

The first example is public schooling. It always shocks Americans when I inform them that free and compulsory schooling is one of the ten “planks” of the Communist Manifesto and that public schooling is a key aspect of the Soviet, Chinese, and Cuban ways of life. Yet, even after discovering these little-known facts, they continue to believe that public schooling in those countries is socialism while public schooling in the United States is free enterprise. Let’s examine the principles of public schooling.

The public schooling system, like all coercive redistributive programs, is founded on the Marxian concept of “from each according to ability, to each according to need.” The political system is used to plunder the wealth and savings of everyone, even those who don’t have children, to pay for the schooling of other people’s children.

The plain truth is that public schooling is also the absolutely perfect embodiment of the socialist concept of central planning. The “education” of each child — from teachers to textbooks to curricula to time in school — is planned for him by a central political agency, either on a local, state, or national basis. The government, not the parents, controls the “education” of the child.

The tragic failure of socialism in public schooling is as well known as the failure of socialism all over the world. Yet, Americans just won’t let go. What is the common answer to the horrific results of public schooling? Plunder the citizenry and distribute the loot to an even greater extent!

But the real tragedy is that so many freedom devotees in America also won’t let go of socialism. All too often, their answer to the problem involves a futile attempt to make socialism work more efficiently. They want competition in public schools, vouchers, and other schemes which have the ultimate effect of leaving the socialist system intact, reformed, and more efficient.

What is the answer to socialism in public schools? Freedom! Why not separate school and state in the same way that our ancestors separated church and state? The Founding Fathers trusted freedom in religious activities, and look how blessed we are that government no longer subsidizes or controls our religious activities (or that of our children). How would you instead like a voucher system with public and private churches? How about competition between public and private churches? If anybody should trust freedom in education, it should be the Americans who have such a wonderful legacy of religious liberty.

A second example of socialism in America: Social Security. Having come into existence as part of the New Deal in the 1930s (the earlier Americans would have nothing to do with it!), the Social Security system is also founded on stealing. Here, the loot is forcibly taken, again under the guise of “taxation,” from the young and given to the old. The recipients always rationalize the process by convincing themselves that the money, which was plundered from them was retained in some type of investment pool which earned interest. They block out of their minds that the politicians spent their money years ago and that they are now engaging in the classic socialist scheme of using the political process to take from those who have and give the loot to others.

A tragedy again concerns many freedom devotees. What is the all too common answer to Social Security? Reduce Social Security taxes! What? Reduce Social Security taxes? Why reduce Social Security taxes? Isn’t this just another attempt to make the socialism of Social Security operate more efficiently?

What is the solution to Social Security? Eliminate Social Security taxes by repealing this evil and immoral scheme! And then constitutionally prohibit it from ever being passed again! Freedom is the solution!

What will then happen to the elderly in a system in which there is no Social Security? Probably the same thing that happened in America for its first 150 years when the American people refused to use the political process to steal from others. Some people saved for their old age. Others depended on their children for help. Others relied on friends, neighbors, or private relief agencies. Those Americans had faith and trust in freedom and in the caring nature of others. They did not believe that politicians, and their bureaucratic minions, were the only good and caring people in American society. And the result was not only the most prosperous society in history but also the most charitable society in history.
Click to expand...
What a wonderful post! I asgree 100%!
 
Something as important as education should not be administered by the state. If you cannot see from one end of an organization to the other end, you are already in trouble. Politicians NEVER spend a minute actually experiencing public schools, nor do their children, grandchildren, and yet they are the ones writing flawed policies for public schools.

If we are going to improve the school system, we are going to have to have competition. School vouchers to parents with no strings attached are a step in the right direction.

My wife was a teacher in the public schools and now she is a college professor. We have seen first hand the inflexibility and the stupidity of a school system administered by the state.

“Public schools” are no longer public. These schools are government schools.
 
Here’s a question that should put all of your claims to rest, if you are Christian than you should fully understand this, if God doesn’t impede on our free will than why is it ok for the government to do so? Also, why is it necessary for the government to remove the grace from charity? Our lack of faith is blaring us in the face if we have this faith in God but not faith in our fellow man. It was through that faith in God that we understood that our fellow man would care for us through charity in our time of need.

I see an increase in taxes which will just make it harder to support the Church and with this “separation of church and state” (which is only the premise that the federal government will not have a federal sponsored church, look it up) they certainly aren’t going to support the Church for us. To fight progressivism you have to think like a progressive. Do you think that a hundred years ago the average American would have thought that we’d be killing our babies and ushering in gay marriage?

The reason for our government is a protection of freedoms not granter of rights. Everyone has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We’ve been screwing up the life part for the past 40 some years, liberty is being slowly stripped away daily as is the pursuit of happiness. Last I checked the Bible outlines happiness pretty well and it has nothing to do with a big screen TV or a shiny Hummer in the front driveway. This idea of America being founded on secular principles is what has been it’s undoing since the early 20th century.

Sorry my thoughts are a bit of a mess today but this stuff gets me a bit heated.
 
Great discussion,
I just read almost all of the replies and can appreciate the sincerity of both sides - so it is with the same sincerity that I’ll submit that there is no way I can support, or even stomach what just happened to the healthcare in our country.

First - for those that “support it” - do you really know what is in it? 2,700 pages of detail - that even those voting on it had not read. How much sense does that make?

Second - I do understand that it will take money - from taxpayers - to pay for abortions. So - sorry I’m not going for that!

Third - I own my own business, and can tell you from first hand experience that this is not the equivalent of “helping the poor” - by making “rich” people pay more in taxes… The real effect is creating more poor. The direction this government is taking is slamming down the economy and it hurts the laborers the most. I have personally had to let people go – ones that I would love to keep paying. And I can tell you this – they’d rather have a job and have to buy insurance than be unemployed with “free” healthcare.

Finally - even if you do somehow think this will be a good thing for America, then you must also agree that it is morally incumbent on the government to provide the absolute best care at the most efficient cost. I am still waiting for that case to be made!
Are you convinced this government can do that??
I will readily state that there were definite areas that needed to be fixed (& in more detail than I’ll go into here - they could’ve been dealt with) - -
But to have this government take over healthcare??
It can’t even balance it’s own budget !
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top