Public healthcare is not anti Catholic

[timcfc]

No, your premise does not follow. To recognize the need to limit the role of government is not tantamount to denying the need for government. The issue is the proper role of government, recognizing that as government grows, individual liberties wane.

The fact that to advocate an end to the NHS in the UK would be political suicide is only to prove that government largess is self perpetuating. It is exactly for this reason socialization has strong political appeal - it brings with it a never ending, deep well of dependents who serve as a solid voting block, until voting no longer matters.

After all, a society whose people forget how to do for themselves will one day find thinking too laborious as well and will see the obvious advantage in having someone else think for them.

Learn about subsidarity. It is a Catholic concept and an important one.

I have no problem with City fire departments, or even volunteer ones. Nor local police departments, Nor national military, nor city roads, county roads, nor toll roads, nor interstate highway systems. I would have a huge problem with a national police force or fire department and obviously a city couldn’t build an interstate highway.

Do it at the most local level practical, and if possible, do it with private enterprise, not taxes.

This is why i dont think you are being consistant. You have no problem with City fire departments, or even volunteer ones. Nor local police departments, Nor national military, nor city roads, county roads, nor toll roads, nor interstate highway systems. Why dont you have a problem with that? Your money goes into paying salaries and teaching other peoples children,that my friend,is socialism.

 

[markomalley]

This is why i dont think you are being consistant. You have no problem with City fire departments, or even volunteer ones. Nor local police departments, Nor national military, nor city roads, county roads, nor toll roads, nor interstate highway systems. Why dont you have a problem with that? Your money goes into paying salaries and teaching other peoples children,that my friend,is socialism.

In the United States, we have this little document called the Constitution.

In that document, the government is assigned certain responsibilities and authority to carry out those responsibilities is delegated to it. I realize that the tradition in the UK is for you to have a sovereign and that the people are subjects of that sovereign. In this country, the people are the sovereigns and they delegate to the government.

Military, roads, and so on are explicitly delegated responsibilities to the government. Health care is not.

And, see, there is this little part of the Constitution that says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
​

In other words, if the people haven’t, explicitly through the Constitution, told the government to take care of something…it is to keep it’s grubby little hands off.

 

[Biggie]

This is why i dont think you are being consistant. You have no problem with City fire departments, or even volunteer ones. Nor local police departments, Nor national military, nor city roads, county roads, nor toll roads, nor interstate highway systems. Why dont you have a problem with that? Your money goes into paying salaries and teaching other peoples children,that my friend,is socialism.

Please re-read the first paragraph of my post so I do not have to type it again.

 

[markbrumbaugh]

This is why i dont think you are being consistant. You have no problem with City fire departments, or even volunteer ones. Nor local police departments, Nor national military, nor city roads, county roads, nor toll roads, nor interstate highway systems. Why dont you have a problem with that? Your money goes into paying salaries and teaching other peoples children,that my friend,is socialism.

I think we may have found a troll in you. None of us ever said government had no rolls.
Since you didn’t look it up, here is the definition of subsidiarity.

Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. The Oxford English Dictionary defines subsidiarity as the idea that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level. The concept is applicable in the fields of government, political science, cybernetics, management, military (Mission Command) and, metaphorically, in the distribution of software module responsibilities in object-oriented programming (according to the Information expert design guideline). Subsidiarity is, ideally or in principle, one of the features of federalism, where it asserts the rights of the parts over the whole.

The word subsidiarity is derived from the Latin word subsidiarius and has its origins in Catholic social teaching (see Subsidiarity (Catholicism)).[1] The concept or principle is found in several constitutions around the world (for example, the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which asserts States rights).

 

[choy]

Christianity is not a compact with mediocrity and failure. Socialization appeals to Christian values when a justification of the rigors it imposes on peoples is needed, and denies Christian values at the core of its implementation. Christian sentimentality continues to fuel socialization, and continues to support it as it denies in its essentials real Christian values.

Under Obamacare, the injustice of the currently uninsured will be replaced (to some extent although not all will be insured in the end) with the injustice of rationing, of a reduced standard of care, of less specialization and development. As in all socialized systems, the truly innovative and cutting edge treatments will be reserved for the wealthy, while mediocrity will prevail throughout under the inability of socialization to provide motivation. The one end that will be served is centralized planning, which is what always feeds socialism and is the true motive for it.

while i haven’t read the bill, have you?

i live in a country with socialized medicine, and i tell you our healthcare standards are no less than any other first world nation

i think all your arguments are unfounded and lacks basis. unless there’s something in Obama’s bill that differs from the social healthcare in Canada and the EU

 

[choy]

In the United States, we have this little document called the Constitution.

every democratic country in the world has a constitution
and even some non-democratic ones

 

[markomalley]

every democratic country in the world has a constitution
and even some non-democratic ones

perhaps you can send me a link to the UK’s Constitution then?

(Not a collection of documents and common law that has developed over a thousand years, but the one, **single **document that is the supreme law of that land)

While you’re at it, you might send me a link to the single document that is the supreme law of the land where you’re from? (I note paragraph 52 of Schedule B of the “Constitution Act of 1982”, along with that Act’s “Schedule” that tell me you will have a slightly easier time of it than you will for the UK’s “Constitution”…but will have an impossible task nonetheless)

I do, on the other hand, agree that many countries have emulated the US and have developed a “Constitution” – or several constitutions when it was found that a version did not suit the government in power at the time – but that simply means that they are copying a successful experiment.

But, all of that is just drivel.

Both in the UK and in Canada, individual rights and freedoms are ultimately granted to the people by the Crown (I realize that the Crown abrogated all her authority over Canada in 1982, but, still, she abrogated it, not to the people of Canada, but to the Canadian government, which, graciously, granted certain rights and freedoms upon her citizens)

On the other hand, in the US, each individual is sovereign. We the People have delegated certain responsibilities to the government and We the People have empowered the government sufficient authority to carry out those responsibilities. There is a fundamental difference in the two paradigms.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Markomalley, the UK very definitely has a constitution. You are talking about a codified constitution, which is one type of constitution. The strength (and also weakness) of the UK constitution is that it can evolve.
As for rights - how come human rights in at least some regards have much stronger protection in the UK than the US?
As for the Crown it all depends on exactly what you mean by that markomalley. Since 1689 the powers of the monarch have progressively been diminished.

 

[St_Francis]

This is an interesting question.

To me, part of the problem with the new system in the US is that the US is not like those other nations, so comparing the US with France or Germany or Canada doesn’t really work.

The other part of the problem is that the health insurance bill will lead to a system which is not like the system of other nations. The bill which has been passed, afaict, will eventually *lead *to a system somewhat vaguely similar to theirs by stealth, because the current law will lead to a massive increase in insurance policy premiums, rendering even more people uninsured which will of course be a problem needing to be solved by even more application of government intervention, which is what got us to the point we were at before this bill was passed.

In fact, you could make the argument that universal health care is actually something Jesus would support. With universal healthcare, people that are poor and would not be able to afford insurance can actually get insurance…isn’t helping the poor one of Jesus’ biggest messages?

In the US, poor people can currently get onto special programs for the poor, which are unfortunately currently underfunded so that not all poor people can get on them, but most can.

Oddly enough, the bar has been raised over the course of time as the government policies have “moved the bubble” of who can’t afford insurance. It used to be that only the very poorest were unable to afford insurance. Then the government stepped in to help them, which raised the price, which caused the next level up of people to have difficulty affording insurance.

At the same time, mandates were put on by state governments as to what insurance had to cover, which also caused rises in premiums.

So the issue is not so much that poor people can’t get insurance–many of them can–but that working-class people can not afford insurance… *because of *government intervention.

What I am saying is that MANY countries around the world have universal healthcare and it works a lot better than America’s healthcare (before the obamaplan or whatever you want to call it).

And they are actually going to be facing some pretty serious problems over the next couple of decades as their Baby Boomers age, just as we are. And to me, this is the central crux of the problem: too many people in need of help and not enough people to support them.

I just think that a lot of Catholics tend to lean to the right because of Republicans’ stance on abortion, and going against this healthcare is part of being conservative.

This is a totally scurrilous statement. (You’re not being very nice, iow.) First of all, while many Catholics may feel forced to vote for Republicans because the Democrats are so *into *abortion, that doesn’t mean they fall into lockstep with the Republicans on other issues.

Secondly, just because the Democrats have described this law in one way doesn’t mean it will work out that way. There are *plenty *of reasons to be against this law which does *not *provide protection wrt abortion and which violates the *Catholic *principles of prudence and subsidiarity.

I am just wondering, for all those that do not support Obama’s healthcare plan…do you think that countries such as France, Canada, England, etc should be fighting to privatize health care? Should they be against their universal healthcare systems? If you don’t think so, then why are you so against America’s government healthcare?

I hope I have clarified that because both our nations and the proposed “system” in the US differ from the current situations in other nations, as well as the fact that they will soon have problems with their systems, that these questions are like asking someone ot compare apples and oranges.

 

[Doc_Keele]

It’s easy to find flaws without any policy or system - but the fundamental issue is how many people here are just opposed to social healthcare on principle, period. It seems quite a few are.
Here’s a thought - if more Catholics were contributing to Catholic medical charities more money, would this change be necessary? I often think that most of Christianity has lost its way in the practice of the corporal works of mercy.
Here’s another thought - what will Jesus be saying to Christians in heaven who complained about being “forced” to commit acts of charity?

 

[St_Francis]

It’s easy to find flaws without any policy or system - but the fundamental issue is how many people here are just opposed to social healthcare on principle, period. It seems quite a few are.
Here’s a thought - if more Catholics were contributing to Catholic medical charities more money, would this change be necessary? I often think that most of Christianity has lost its way in the practice of the corporal works of mercy.

This brings up a good point, altho I don’t entirely agree with the point you seem to be trying to make.

It is true that when entire societies were Catholic, health care, esp for the poor, was offered by monasteries and convents, people who had dedicated their entire lives to the service of God through serving people in this way. And this seems like the absolutely most efficient way of dealing with issues of social service: duh! socially, and through service. Not through the government, not through people for whom it is just a job, not through profit-making enterprises.

Unfortunately, the US is only 1/4 Catholic, and many of those Catholics do not understand that the Church ought to be the deliverer of social services rather than the government. So it is difficult in a non-Catholic society for the Church to fully support a system which would care for all of them, esp when the society seems determined to impose its own form of morality on everyone else (ie, requiring provision of abc, abortion, etc. and forbidding religious expression if any governmental aid is given).

Moreover, the whole society is not attuned to giving not only money but *lives. *When people have only one or two children, they don’t necessarily encourage them to move in a direction which would preclude grandchildren, and society itself is only just recovering from the 1960’s when there was so much destruction visited upon the convents and monasteries. It is much less efficient to pay someone a lot of money to provide services than it is to support people who have oriented their entire lives to providing these services.

And I believe that it would be close to impossible for the Church to provide sufficiently for *all *the people in the nation when only 1/4 are Catholic.

Here’s another thought - what will Jesus be saying to Christians in heaven who complained about being “forced” to commit acts of charity?

What would Christ say to those who force people to help others at the expense of their children’s immortal souls? At the expense of the Church itself? At the expense of others in need of help?

What would Christ say to those who force mothers into work? Who force those who formerly volunteered in the community into paid work? Who force parents into limiting their families?

And what would Christ say to those who forced people into dependency on the government? Who obscured the needs of many so that people’s hearts were not touched? Who turned everything about caritas into nothing more than monetary contributions?

 

[Doc_Keele]

So instead of talking about what Jesus would say to us, you’ve flipped into what Jesus would say to them? Jesus would want us to deflect responsibility like that? It was their fault I couldn’t do my Christian duty?
And no, I wasn’t saying that Christians should be responsible for a nation’s healthcare.

 

[St_Francis]

So instead of talking about what Jesus would say to us, you’ve flipped into what Jesus would say to them? Jesus would want us to deflect responsibility like that? It was their fault I couldn’t do my Christian duty?

That was a rhetorical way of making my point.

And no, I wasn’t saying that Christians should be responsible for a nation’s healthcare.

That wasn’t what I thought you *might *be trying to say.

 

[markomalley]

Markomalley, the UK very definitely has a constitution. You are talking about a codified constitution, which is one type of constitution. The strength (and also weakness) of the UK constitution is that it can evolve.
As for rights - how come human rights in at least some regards have much stronger protection in the UK than the US?
As for the Crown it all depends on exactly what you mean by that markomalley. Since 1689 the powers of the monarch have progressively been diminished.

What I said was,perhaps you can send me a link to the UK’s Constitution then?

• (Not a collection of documents and common law that has developed over a thousand years, but the one, **single *document that is the supreme law of that land)
  So why are you attempting to correct something that you fundamentally agree with?

From the UK Constitution Society:

Experts debate how to define the British constitution. Britain is often said to have an ‘unwritten’ constitution, but this is not strictly true, because many of the fundamental aspects of the constitution can be found in documents, such as Acts of Parliament. However Britain does not have a single ‘codifying’ document, collecting together the fundamental laws of the nation.

What Britain has is a mixture of various institutions, statutes, conventions, customs, judicial decisions and treaties, which together can be called ‘the constitution’. The British constitution is not ‘entrenched’ and there is no document with ‘higher law’ status. There is no single or easy mechanism for distinguishing constitutional laws from the rest of the law or for testing whether laws passed or actions taken by governments are ‘unconstitutional’. Unlike other countries, there is no formal procedure which must be followed before changes are made to the British constitution.
​

In fact, the UK Ministry of Justice mused this time last year:

if our rights and responsibilities should be drawn together in one place, perhaps in a Bill of Rights and Reponsibilities, so they are easily accessible and understood.
​

So what is your point? If you can send me a link to the UK Constitution, I would be more than happy to read it.

And once again, let me stress that I am not saying that the UK does not have Constitutional Law or Constitutional Principles. It’s obvious that you do. But, since the Magna Carta, those rights have devolved from the Crown…the law evolved from the Crown…the Crown was not established by the law.

You also commented,* As for the Crown it all depends on exactly what you mean by that markomalley. Since 1689 the powers of the monarch have progressively been diminished.*

My response would be that the Crown has gradually abdicated its rights since 1869. But the key difference is that the Crown has abdicated its rights; not that the people have delegated responsibilities to the Crown.

The UK Republic Society (an anti-monarchist group) has the following observation about the subject that is interesting:

…power has to come from somewhere and must reside with someone. In Britain it comes from the Crown and resides with the government and parliament. The people barely get a look-in, being given only the occasional chance to participate in the formal political process.
One key feature of the constitution is the continuation of arbitrary, unlimited and unaccountable power - all of which derive from the Crown. Most of these are exercised by the government, some continue to be exercised by the Queen.
​

But, what does this have to do with healthcare?

Unlike in both Canada and the UK, our Constitution established our Federal Government. Our Federal Government was created by the people and was given certain, specific responsibilities that are contained in our Constitution. Our Constitution also explicitly says that our Federal Government may not go farther than those powers that have been delegated to it. “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. Article I Section 8 does call for Congress to establish and fund the military, it does call for roads, and it does authorize police powers to enforce properly constituted federal laws on subjects authorized by Article I Section 8 (as well as any Amendment directing Congress to enact legislation on a certain subject). But a national health service (in any form) is not one of those “enumerated powers”

In both the UK and Canada, since sovereignty rests in the Crown and devolves toward the people, unless there is a “constitutional” law that expressly prohibits the government from taking an action or granting the people a “right” that would be infringed by such a law, the government is empowered to do as it wills on any subject, right?

In other words, for the NHS to be “unconstitutional” in the UK, there would need to be a law that expressly prohibited Parliament from creating such an agency. Am I correct on that?

On the other hand, in the US, our Constitution automatically prohibits the government from doing something unless it is expressly permitted in the Constitution.

In other words, there is a fundamental difference in paradigm.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Quoting these odd sources is not very persuasive lol - the UK Republic Society LOL, never heard of them and they certainly aren’t constitutional scholars - try quoting William Rees-Mogg, and I would give the quote more credence.
The constitutional situation in the UK is not as you describe actually.
Naturally the situation in the US and other countries who had revolutions etc is different - stands to reason, doesn’t it?
You’re not correct about the NHS, because you don’t understand the UK situation. Parliamentary supremacy/sovereignty is the key concept here. The elected representatives in the UK are actually freer than in the US to enact statutes.
I’m not sure your understanding of what the Crown means is correct either - what do you mean by the term?

And your assertion that the US Constitution is ONE document, well the interpretation of it (which is crucial) is in case law, scattered through many documents. Virtually all Constitutions are living documents, contrary to what you seem to be saying.

 

[markomalley]

Quoting these odd sources is not very persuasive lol - the UK Republic Society LOL, never heard of them and they certainly aren’t constitutional scholars - try quoting William Rees-Mogg, and I would give the quote more credence.

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? I am confused why you are claiming to disagree without providing some evidence to the contrary? You don’t like my sources (your ministry of justice being one of them), then give me a source otherwise? Even your Parliament agrees with me (but I suppose they’re wrong too).

The constitutional situation in the UK is not as you describe actually.
Naturally the situation in the US and other countries who had revolutions etc is different - stands to reason, doesn’t it?

Of course it does, but that is critical. You all have 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. 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.

You’re not correct about the NHS, because you don’t understand the UK situation. Parliamentary supremacy/sovereignty is the key concept here. The elected representatives in the UK are actually freer than in the US to enact statutes.

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.

I’m not sure your understanding of what the Crown means is correct either - what do you mean by the term?

My understanding of the Crown is your monarch (institutionally speaking). The Crown appoints the PM and can fire the PM (granted, the PM is virtually always the leader of the majority party in Commons…and I don’t know of a time in recent history where one’s been fired, but the Crown has that right). The Crown calls elections (customarily at the recommendation of the PM) and can issue orders in council (which, again, are customarily rubber stamped from recommendations given by her privy council – again, controlled by the PM). I full well recognize that your monarch is virtually a figurehead in modern times, but, with the exception of the couple of decades that England was a commonwealth, the dissolution of power was gradual and voluntary over the centuries.

And your assertion that the US Constitution is ONE document, well the interpretation of it (which is crucial) is in case law, scattered through many documents. Virtually all Constitutions are living documents, contrary to what you seem to be saying.

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).

But interpretations change how it is applied, not the content thereof.

For example, our Constitution says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (the “free religion clause”)

If Congress would have wished to pass a law that said, “The practice of Catholicism has been found to contribute toward pedophilia and is hereby, on family security grounds, prohibited,” it would be unable to do so. (not that they would)

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?)

 

[Biggie]

while i haven’t read the bill, have you?

i live in a country with socialized medicine, and i tell you our healthcare standards are no less than any other first world nation

i think all your arguments are unfounded and lacks basis. unless there’s something in Obama’s bill that differs from the social healthcare in Canada and the EU

Let me get this straight. You’re arguing the merits of a bill you know nothing about on the basis it might be similar to Canada and the EU’s system? Ok.

 

[Nec5]

For all those that claim that charity is mandatory, I suggest you read the New Testament letters where Paul pleads asks for donations from richer churches for the poorer churches. He did not pay thugs to kick people out of the church or have them arrested if they didn’t cough up the money.

Christ calls us to make that charitable choice, but it is our choice. That’s the point. We’ll have to answer for our choices, but forced charity is not charity.

It’s like mandatory volunteerism. Absurd.

 

[Doc_Keele]

My understanding of the Crown is your monarch (institutionally speaking)

Nope, that’s incorrect. Actually the Crown has a few meanings, but constitutionally there are very few (and decreasing over the years) prerogatives personally exercised by the monarch.

 

[markomalley]

Nope, that’s incorrect. Actually the Crown has a few meanings, but constitutionally there are very few (and decreasing over the years) prerogatives personally exercised by the monarch.

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.