Subsidiarity, anyone?

[DanteAlighieri]

Subsidiarity is a principle of governance which holds that matters should be settled by the most local competent authority. We see it all the time. For example, it would be absurd for the US Congress to pass a law raising the speed limit on Main Street in City Town, as this is more appropriately handled by the city’s government.

The Church teaches that subsidiarity should be the principle by which man governs his societies. From the Catechism (all emphasis added):

1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."7

This teaching explicitly rejects the intervention of national government in local matters.

1884 God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence.

Here the Church teaches that absolute power should not rest in the hands of one or a few, but that individuals ought to be left to make the choices they are qualified to make.

1885 The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.

And here the Church teaches that all forms of collectivism – i.e., the commingling of wealth or goods to be distributed by the state according to need – are to be avoided. She goes on to say that globally implemented subsidiarity is the best means of achieving order among nations.

I point all of this out in response to the growing number of threads about nationalized health care. The Church seems to warn us against nationalizing almost anything that people, groups, and businesses can do independently because the nationalization process tends to reduce our individual liberties and erode our sense of responsibility. In fact, as God has chosen to delegate to us those responsibilities for which we are equipped, the governments of the earth ought to do the same.

In short, nationalizing healthcare is a terrible idea that runs the risk of impacting our ability to look after ourselves as we see fit. It opens the door for future government interventions. Most importantly, however, it flies in the face of a principle that the Church teaches is ideal for human governance.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Nec5]

I point all of this out in response to the growing number of threads about nationalized health care. The Church seems to warn us against nationalizing almost anything that people, groups, and businesses can do independently because the nationalization process tends to reduce our individual liberties and erode our sense of responsibility. In fact, as God has chosen to delegate to us those responsibilities for which we are equipped, the governments of the earth ought to do the same.

Nationalized healthcare is a final step in the progressive march to officially shift the nation’s structure. It is also merely a formality for the shift that has already taken place within the culture over the last 50+ years.

However, the part I bolded in your description is the part that national health care supporters will point out. They will argue that, given the number of uninsured and the rising costs, independent people and businesses have clearly demonstrated their inability to handle health care. Because liberty and morality are not as easily quantifiable as costs and insurance coverage, they will be downplayed and ignored in the debate.

 

[JimG]

This teaching explicitly rejects the intervention of national government in local matters.

Perhaps the USCCB bureaucracy should give this matter some serious consideration.

 

[Timbothefiveth]

I think that healthcare is a national matter. Obviously using corporations alone, or state governments alone has not succeeded, and I’d think that healthcare for the nation would be a national matter. I should add that I am opposed to the current bill because of abortion funding.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I think that healthcare is a national matter. Obviously using corporations alone, or state governments alone has not succeeded, and I’d think that healthcare for the nation would be a national matter. I should add that I am opposed to the current bill because of abortion funding.

The problem is that health insurance is the issue – NOT medical care. The insurance industry has heretofore been hampered by restrictions such as an inability to do business across state lines. In other words, IMHO, the industry has not been given the opportunity to really do what it can do.

Add to that the need for tort reform to prevent doctors’ malpractice insurance from going through the roof, and a fear of litigation that causes doctors to take the safest course instead of the wisest one (at times), and the fact that illegal immigrants are able to get treatment without being held accountable, and there’s far too much causing the cost of care to increase. This is not going to change merely because the government runs it all; the government has never been able to run any social program efficiently – what makes anyone think that things will be different when it has its hands in an industry that represents one fifth of our economy?

Peace,
Dante

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I think that healthcare is a national matter. Obviously using corporations alone, or state governments alone has not succeeded, and I’d think that healthcare for the nation would be a national matter. I should add that I am opposed to the current bill because of abortion funding.

The problem with the current bill is twofold. Abortion (as you mention) and it does not address the root reasons of why health care is expensive. All it does is push the cost around (i.e. the government can pay for your health care now).

Let’s look at and understand the root causes of rising costs, before we jump off the single payer cliff.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Does anyone have anything to add to the subsidiarity angle here? I think it’s the best argument against nationalized health care, as well as almost any other federal interloping.

Peace,
Dante

 

[JimG]

The U.S.A. originally operated pretty much on the principle of subsidiarity at its founding, with the national government receiving enumerated powers, and all other power falling to the States. But we have gone a long way toward centralization since then–a bad thing, which may yet bring us down.

ComputerGeek25:

Let’s look at and understand the root causes of rising costs, before we jump off the single payer cliff.

I agree with this. The mere availability of health insurance, while good, has the effect of increasing costs. After all, if someone else is paying, what does the customer care about costs?

It’s good for healthcare professionals, because it ensures that they get paid. It’s a prepay plan. But if it pays first dollar, costs are naturally going to rise, as there is no check on demand.

Compare that to costs that health insurance doesn’t pay–like LASIK surgery–those prices of decreased.

 

[Ella]

Does anyone have anything to add to the subsidiarity angle here? I think it’s the best argument against nationalized health care, as well as almost any other federal interloping.

Peace,
Dante

My problem with the argument is that is seems to be stating that there is a Catholic Church based prohibition against nationalized health insurance (which is what is being proposed- not nationalized health care). If this is so I don’t see why the Vatican isn’t protesting Italy’s nationalized health insurance… btw what kind of health insurance does the Vatican have? I don’t know…

 

[St_Francis]

My problem with the argument is that is seems to be stating that there is a Catholic Church based prohibition against nationalized health insurance (which is what is being proposed- not nationalized health care). If this is so I don’t see why the Vatican isn’t protesting Italy’s nationalized health insurance… btw what kind of health insurance does the Vatican have? I don’t know…

Among other things, Italy is as small as some of our states…

 

[Ella]

Among other things, Italy is as small as some of our states…

So if it’s a small country then it’s OK to have nationalized health insurance? What if each state had its own gov’t health insurance, would you back that because of subsidiarity?

I think if this was really an issue then we would know about it already from the Church - because unlike the U.S. every other industrialized western nation has some sort of nationalized insurance or health care. The fact is that it’s not something the Church has campaigned against in the past, unlike for instance communism or abortion.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

So if it’s a small country then it’s OK to have nationalized health insurance? What if each state had its own gov’t health insurance, would you back that because of subsidiarity?

I think if this was really an issue then we would know about it already from the Church - because unlike the U.S. every other industrialized western nation has some sort of nationalized insurance or health care. The fact is that it’s not something the Church has campaigned against in the past, unlike for instance communism or abortion.

The point of subsidiarity is that a nation’s issues are to be handled by the LEAST centralized authority POSSIBLE. In a smaller nation, it is a great deal easier for such to be accomplished by the central government, since smaller nations often have less autonomous provinces and municipalities. Italy, for example, also has a national police force. Can you envision the same in the US? Local police and sheriffs would fight tooth and nail against such an encroachment on their jurisdictions.

Further, I’m not arguing that the Church is against national health insurance or healthcare; I’m arguing that a) the Church supports subsidiarity, which is more compatible with our republican (note the little “r”) form of government, and b) the Church roundly denounces socialism, of which nationalized health insurance and/or healthcare is a harbinger.

It’s also important to remember that the Church has a long history of not directly interfering or asserting her position on a particular nation’s particular politics. In any case, she has spoken (as I pointed out) against socialism “in all its forms”. Nonetheless, the absence of a statement from the Church on a given issue does not suggest that the issue is not worthy of support.

Peace,
Dante

 

[manualman]

My beef with the whole debate lately is that the bill doesn’t seem to do ANYTHING to actually control the costs of healthcare. It’s all about how to figure out who should pay that exorbitant costs.

IMO, this is all cart before the horse issues. If we place the government in charge of paying than they will do like they always do: ignore the high costs and grow the deficit. I see this process as pouring gasoline on the fire (extreme deficits) that is currently burning down our economy.

The government has PROVEN itself already to be inept at handling health care. The proof is in the second rate care given to our armed forces and the Medicare system. Medicare ONLY works because doctors control the numbers of medicare patients they accept. The payments are so low that they lose money and make it up by jacking up the rates paid by cash patients and regular insurance patients. No doctor could make ends meet if his clientelle were 100% medicare/medicaid.

If they REALLY wanted to fix this, they’d focus on COSTS. Here’s how to fix costs:

1. Tort reform. Limit pain and suffering and punitive damages to $50,000 TOTAL. Change legal system to make lawsuit losers pay the other side’s legal fees.
2. Pass a law making it illegal for health care practitioners to charge different rates to different people for the same fee. Same fee for individuals, insurance companies or Medicare. No discounts for ANYBODY. This takes away a HUGE advantage currently exploited by insurance companies. Betcha didn’t know that most insurance companies negotiate far lower fees than doctors charge cash patients AND FORCE doctors to contractually agree NOT to offer that similar discount to csh patients. That’s just plain evil. Everybody pays the same - by law.
3. Publicise the benefits of pre-tax MSAs and expand them. This allows people to choose higher deductible insurance with lower premiums and to pay the deductible costs from the savings - or SAVE that money altogether if they had a healthy year.
4. Interstate competition amonst insurance companies. This one needs work. We’d need to establish some national minimum standards to avoid having ALL insurnace companies simply flock to the state with the schlockiest standards.

See, it’s not that hard. And you’ll notice that the above all syncs with the principle of subsidiarity. Too bad the pols are more interested in expanding their power and voting blocs than actual reform and cost savings. If you choose to make me emperor, I’ll fix all that!

 

[ComputerGeek25]

My beef with the whole debate lately is that the bill doesn’t seem to do ANYTHING to actually control the costs of healthcare. It’s all about how to figure out who should pay that exorbitant costs.

IMO, this is all cart before the horse issues. If we place the government in charge of paying than they will do like they always do: ignore the high costs and grow the deficit. I see this process as pouring gasoline on the fire (extreme deficits) that is currently burning down our economy.

The government has PROVEN itself already to be inept at handling health care. The proof is in the second rate care given to our armed forces and the Medicare system. Medicare ONLY works because doctors control the numbers of medicare patients they accept. The payments are so low that they lose money and make it up by jacking up the rates paid by cash patients and regular insurance patients. No doctor could make ends meet if his clientelle were 100% medicare/medicaid.

If they REALLY wanted to fix this, they’d focus on COSTS. Here’s how to fix costs:

1. Tort reform. Limit pain and suffering and punitive damages to $50,000 TOTAL. Change legal system to make lawsuit losers pay the other side’s legal fees.
2. Pass a law making it illegal for health care practitioners to charge different rates to different people for the same fee. Same fee for individuals, insurance companies or Medicare. No discounts for ANYBODY. This takes away a HUGE advantage currently exploited by insurance companies. Betcha didn’t know that most insurance companies negotiate far lower fees than doctors charge cash patients AND FORCE doctors to contractually agree NOT to offer that similar discount to csh patients. That’s just plain evil. Everybody pays the same - by law.
3. Publicise the benefits of pre-tax MSAs and expand them. This allows people to choose higher deductible insurance with lower premiums and to pay the deductible costs from the savings - or SAVE that money altogether if they had a healthy year.
4. Interstate competition amonst insurance companies. This one needs work. We’d need to establish some national minimum standards to avoid having ALL insurnace companies simply flock to the state with the schlockiest standards.

See, it’s not that hard. And you’ll notice that the above all syncs with the principle of subsidiarity. Too bad the pols are more interested in expanding their power and voting blocs than actual reform and cost savings. If you choose to make me emperor, I’ll fix all that!

I like the French way of controlling malpractice. For example, I believe they have specially trained judges trying the cases, and no juries on these cases. At least with this, the judge can call BS if they have a rudimentary understanding of medicine and the issues.

 

[LittleSoldier]

This teaching explicitly rejects the intervention of national government in local matters.

I don’t see that in CCC 1883. What it is stating is not that national government shouldn’t intervene in local matters, but that it should “support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activities with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”

Here the Church teaches that absolute power should not rest in the hands of one or a few, but that individuals ought to be left to make the choices they are qualified to make.

Again, I don’t come to the same conclusion as you. Here the CCC (1884) states “The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, ** should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence.”** I don’t see how you could come to the conclusion you arrived at.

And here the Church teaches that all forms of collectivism – i.e., the commingling of wealth or goods to be distributed by the state according to need – are to be avoided. She goes on to say that globally implemented subsidiarity is the best means of achieving order among nations.

This is from CCC 1885. I agree with your conclusion.

I point all of this out in response to the growing number of threads about nationalized health care. The Church seems to warn us against nationalizing almost anything that people, groups, and businesses can do independently because the nationalization process tends to reduce our individual liberties and erode our sense of responsibility. In fact, as God has chosen to delegate to us those responsibilities for which we are equipped, the governments of the earth ought to do the same.

I don’t see the Church necessarily warning us against nationalizing anything. What I believe is being stated in the CCC is that all modes of government should reflect God’s way of governing the world and that those people who are involved in any level of government should allow for the personal freedom and initiative of human beings. I think you are making a major leap to come to the conclusions you came to. While reading the passages you referenced, I was struck by the idea that they could also be used to support national health care, as long as it is done appropriately.

In short, nationalizing healthcare is a terrible idea that runs the risk of impacting our ability to look after ourselves as we see fit. It opens the door for future government interventions. Most importantly, however, it flies in the face of a principle that the Church teaches is ideal for human governance.

Again, I believe you a making a huge leap by backing up your ideology with the CCC. It’s not as simple as you would have others believe.