Socialism and Catholicism

[JoeFreedom]

The problem many who advocate for universal healthcare forget is that utopia on this planet is not possible, and evil will always exist, and it cannot be legislated away. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Everything is in a state of entropy. Because evil exists, and when we give government more power to decide what is better and what is not, we give it more opportunity to become oppressive. History has shown this time and time again.

 

[Crocus]

The patient has no say in your calculus? I can see why you have a preference for abdicating personal responsibility and handing it over to your doctor and the State.

If you can’t trust that your doctor will work with you for the best outcome, you should then find a new doctor. If you are wealthy enough, you can buy whatever you want, whether you need it or not. Not even an insurance company can deny you that, or impose a deductible.

 

[Socrates92]

Our health care is phenomenal, as long as you don’t have to actually use it.

 

[Socrates92]

If you can’t trust that your doctor will work with you for the best outcome, you should then find a new doctor.

Ha, if only there weren’t a shortage of doctors…

 

[Nepperhan]

Well it says it right there in Acts: “No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.” Isn’t that theoretically a type of communism ?

I think that is closer to socialism than anything else.

 

[Nepperhan]

The problem many who advocate for universal healthcare forget is that utopia on this planet is not possible, and evil will always exist, and it cannot be legislated away.

That’s the same thing which can be said about social security, unemployment insurance, workers compensation and disability benefits. All are socialist measures and all were said to be harbingers of the end of capitalism in the US.

I remember those folks who objected to civil rights laws, too, by saying that racism cannot be legislated away. Actually, that was never the point then and is not the point with universal healthcare now.

 

[JoeFreedom]

Civil rights and social security are not the same thing. No one is objecting to God-given equal rights. I’m objecting to state-sponsored socialism. Which. Has. Failed.

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid account for over 100 Trillion in UNfunded liabilities. Yes it’s a failure.

 

[AlNg]

Communism is totalitarian and atheistic.

Sharing things and holding things in common does not have to be atheistic.

no one may own any possessions.

Not true because in communist Cuba or in communist China you can own your own eyeglasses.

The problem many who advocate for universal healthcare forget is that utopia on this planet is not possible, and evil will always exist, and it cannot be legislated away.

the fact that evil exists and that you cannot have utopia does not mean that you cannot have universal health care paid for by the government.

 

[OnAJourney]

When you define socialism so narrowly then it does not apply to many of the policies that some people call socialism, such as universal health care. That is definitely not condemned by Church teaching

Universal healthcare isn’t socialism. Socialism is not a prerequisite here. A social welfare program existing does not mean socialism. This is a problem I keep seeing from people who conflate the two as if you can’t have one without the other

But the Church does not condemn policies aimed at reducing the disparity. It would not be a terrible thing if the poor were less poor.

That’s correct. However with that in mind, socialism as an ideology with no restraints leads to everyone becoming equally poor and leads to the state violating property rights.

 

[AlNg]

socialism as an ideology with no restraints leads to everyone becoming equally poor

In communist China, there are rich and there are poor.

 

[JoeFreedom]

It really sounds like you are an advocate for communism. Not sure why you would want to defend a system of government like that especially when it has been responsible for the deaths of over 100 million people. You can’t fix communism. It is a horrid form of government and is prohibited by the Catholic Church.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

God doesn’t reward involuntary acts since they don’t require any sacrifice. You’re just doing what you’re ordered to do.

That’s not exactly right. You can still want to help the homeless man and share your sandwich with it only appearing to be compulsory. Like a slave obeying his master is being obedient to God when he obeys for God’s sake.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

In scenario #2 social services are properly funded and the man has access to the mental health services he needs and has his own sandwich and the two of you can have a conversation about how beautiful the park is.

Lol. In fantasy land, maybe. There are homeless in every western nation including the magical lands of northern Europe. Utopian fantasies are utopian. You will ALWAYS have the poor with you… and the state will never care for them all.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

They didn’t teach compulsory socialism and they didn’t teach socialism with non-Christians. They voluntarily sold all they had and shared in common with each other. It’s hardly an argument for compulsory socialism in a pluralistic society. They didn’t share in common with the pagans and Jews. The needs of Christian brethren came first. If that’s what’s being suggested, count me in, but somehow I doubt it.

Complaining you didn’t get your money’s worth? Rather than appreciating your good health and the care you are getting?

Lol. You worked enough to be able to buy another house but were compelled to spend it frivilously on something you didn’t need. Just be glad you have your health and be quiet.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

The patient has no say in your calculus? I can see why you have a preference for abdicating personal responsibility and handing it over to your doctor and the State.

If you can’t trust that your doctor will work with you for the best outcome, you should then find a new doctor. If you are wealthy enough, you can buy whatever you want, whether you need it or not. Not even an insurance company can deny you that, or impose a deductible.

Under Universal Health Care the doctor is constrained by the system to provide only what the system makes available. With euthanasia and legal compulsion for doctors to provide such services the door is wide open for doctors NOT to “work for you for the best outcome,” but rather to work for the outcome that is best for the system. Those can be two quite different things.

This is following the same trajectory as how abortion to “save the life of a woman” moved to abortion on demand, except it is moving from euthanasia in exceptional cases involving terminal patients in great pain, towards anyone the system can convince to terminate their lives.

When you have no support from the system, or anyone around you who might care, to carry on your life, the pressure to end it prematurely can be made quite compelling by those within the system. And when the system has a great deal of incentive to unburden itself of those who – it declares – make no “positive” contribution, this is no longer a case of “work[ing] with you for the best outcome,” unless you mean by “best outcome” that outcome which is best for the system (or State.)

Let’s not become too naive about the “care” that a system or State might be capable of vis a vis any individual.

 

[HarryStotle]

AlNg:

Well it says it right there in Acts: “No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.” Isn’t that theoretically a type of communism ?

I think that is closer to socialism than anything else.

This demonstrates a misunderstanding of the technical difference between socialism and communism.

Communism is ostensibly the State where all individuals freely cooperate in joint ownership of all assets for the good of all. Socialism is the prior stage in the journey towards that optimal state where the governing body (the State) must enforce communal ownership in order to move people towards the utopian state of Communism.

Whether intentional or not, the ambiguity between socialism and communism in discussion makes it appear that socialism is the benign application of social policies, whereas communism – owing to the historical travesties committed in its name – has become the “evil” manifestation to be avoided.

In reality, socialism is the enforcement stage of what inevitably becomes a horror precisely because those socialist policies spiral into manifest evil when seriously attempted.

 

[HarryStotle]

LeafByNiggle:

When you define socialism so narrowly then it does not apply to many of the policies that some people call socialism, such as universal health care. That is definitely not condemned by Church teaching

Universal healthcare isn’t socialism. Socialism is not a prerequisite here. A social welfare program existing does not mean socialism. This is a problem I keep seeing from people who conflate the two as if you can’t have one without the other

Although it might be true that you can have one (universal healthcare) without the other (socialism), it might be necessary to put into place certain safeguards to make sure that one doesn’t end up becoming the other. Absent those safeguards it isn’t clear that within a human condition of insecurity that it isn’t almost inevitable to end up bringing about “the other.”

While slippery slope is not a logical necessity, that doesn’t mean that within a human landscape a slippery slope couldn’t occur 95-99% of the time where serious human moral deficiencies come into play.

 

[Crocus]

the door is wide open for doctors NOT to “work for you for the best outcome,” but rather to work for the outcome that is best for the system.

That is quite a charge against the ethics of my doctor and your doctor. I reject it and so do the regulatory boards. Your alternative is set up to make the most money for the insurance companies.

Under Universal Health Care the doctor is constrained by the system to provide only what the system makes available.

We already talked about basic services, you said vision, dental, drugs and travel insurance was missing – you can buy those as extras if you want, let’s not use as excuse to withdraw universal healthcare of basic services, from everyone else.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

the door is wide open for doctors NOT to “work for you for the best outcome,” but rather to work for the outcome that is best for the system.

That is quite a charge against the ethics of my doctor and your doctor. I reject it and so do the regulatory boards. Your alternative is set up to make the most money for the insurance companies.

Well, that is quite a charge against my ethics.

It is also false and misrepresents what I said.

I did not say all doctors do, in fact, work for the best outcome of the system. I said the system has been set up such that the best outcome for the system is pitted directly against the best outcome for the patient in many cases where the system deems the patient to be an undue burden upon it.

You might want to think about that.

You aren’t claiming it doesn’t happen are you? That medical professionals are always ethical and upright, and always do what is best for the patient.

Canadian Disabled Man Denied Care but Offered Euthanasia | National Review

Coercion to “choose” assisted suicide/euthanasia will come in many guises.

www.nationalreview.com

Family says B.C. man with history of depression wasn't fit for assisted death

A British Columbia man who struggled with depression and showed no signs of facing an imminent death was given a medically-assisted death despite desperate pleas from his loved ones, family members say.

www.ctvnews.ca

Where do abortion clinics get all of those doctors willing to do abortions from, do you suppose?

It is very simple: create a wedge between interests and you get those who will (by coercion or quite freely) come down on one side or the other of that wedge.

Wedge between a baby in the womb and the mother will inevitably result in those who will rationalize their participation.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

OnAJourney:

LeafByNiggle:

When you define socialism so narrowly then it does not apply to many of the policies that some people call socialism, such as universal health care. That is definitely not condemned by Church teaching

Universal healthcare isn’t socialism. Socialism is not a prerequisite here. A social welfare program existing does not mean socialism. This is a problem I keep seeing from people who conflate the two as if you can’t have one without the other

Although it might be true that you can have one (universal healthcare) without the other (socialism), it might be necessary to put into place certain safeguards to make sure that one doesn’t end up becoming the other. Absent those safeguards it isn’t clear that within a human condition of insecurity that it isn’t almost inevitable to end up bringing about “the other.”

While slippery slope is not a logical necessity, that doesn’t mean that within a human landscape a slippery slope couldn’t occur 95-99% of the time where serious human moral deficiencies come into play.

It is something to watch out for. But it is not a reason to throw out the whole idea of universal health care. No matter what system you adopt, constant vigilance is always necessary.