Universal Healthcare, Is it scriptural?

[QuicumqueVult]

Oi, you, Brummie! You the lovely bloke wot started this thread. Can you take over for a bit please? I’m off for a weekend religious retreat and this Vern bloke is raising some very good Objections to your very important Quaetio. My Responses and (would be) Refutations are being met with considerable acumen.

This is of couse a thread about the comparitive rationalities of contrary politico-economic systems. We aren’t quite into the realm of magisteral social teaching just yet. But we’re rather skirting the edges I’d say.

I hope to be back to the CAF on Monday. Until then, HELP!

 

[QuicumqueVult]

As a possible springboard, consider and comment on the following from the CCC:

Respect for health

[2288](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2288.htm’) Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good.
Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance.

 

[vern_humphrey]

As a possible springboard, consider and comment on the following from the CCC:

Respect for health

[2288](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2288.htm’) Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good.
Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance.

But that doesn’t say “universal health care.”

I cited Chapter 5 of 1 Timothy earlier. Here it is:

1 Do not rebuke an older man, but appeal to him as a father. Treat younger men as brothers,
2 older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters with complete purity.
3 Honor widows who are truly widows.
4 But if a widow has children or grandchildren, let these first learn to perform their religious duty to their own family and to make recompense to their parents, for this is pleasing to God.
5 The real widow, who is all alone, has set her hope on God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day.
6 But the one who is self-indulgent is dead while she lives.
7 Command this, so that they may be irreproachable.
8 And whoever does not provide for relatives and especially family members has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
9 Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years old, married only once,
10 with a reputation for good works, namely, that she has raised children, practiced hospitality, washed the feet of the holy ones, helped those in distress, involved herself in every good work.
11 But exclude younger widows, for when their sensuality estranges them from Christ, they want to marry
12 and will incur condemnation for breaking their first pledge.
13 And furthermore, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers but gossips and busybodies as well, talking about things that ought not to be mentioned.
14 So I would like younger widows to marry, have children, and manage a home, so as to give the adversary no pretext for maligning us.
15 For some have already turned away to follow Satan.
16 If any woman believer has widowed relatives, she must assist them; the church is not to be burdened, so that it will be able to help those who are truly widows.
17 Presbyters who preside well deserve double honor, especially those who toil in preaching and teaching.
18 For the scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is threshing,” and, “A worker deserves his pay.”

(verses 1 through 18)

Note the points Paul makes – he is against “universal” economic charity for widows.

1. Those who can pay their own way must pay their own way.
2. Those who cannot pay their own way must be supported by their families.
3. Only those who cannot pay their own way and have no families should be supported by the Church (or the community.)

And Paul tells us why:

1. “Universal” charity has a deleterious effect on those who receive it.
2. “Universal” charity strains the resources of the Church (or the community) and leaves less for the truly needy.
3. “Universal” charity results in us abandoning our duty (“And whoever does not provide for relatives and especially family members has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever”)

And finally, as regards the doctors who have fled Canada:

17 Presbyters who preside well deserve double honor, especially those who toil in preaching and teaching.
18 For the scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is threshing,” and, “A worker deserves his pay.”

So the anwer to the original question, “Universal Healthcare, Is it scriptural?” is “No.” And Saint Paul explains why.

 

[QuicumqueVult]

I think we need to distinguish between St Paul’s levels of magisterial warrant. Some of his teaching is dominical (from the Lord), and some of his teaching is personal (from his heart). For instance St Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 7 (NAB):

8 Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire. 10 To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord): a wife should not separate from her husband . … 17 Only, everyone should live as the Lord has assigned, just as God called each one. I give this order in all the churches.

St Paul would actually prefer, according to 1 Cor 7, that widows remain unmarried. That’s somewhat different than his advice to Bishop Timothy.

The Bible alone is not a place to find answers to all questions.

I think Scripture can be adduced to support both positions.

The Catechism does not mandate universal health care. But it also teaches that the haves should sometimes provide for the have-nots. So does our Lord (‘the least of these’). But his audience is obviously his disciples. Pauline teaching: the church.

Let’s get hypothetical.

If your mother were (1) a widow, and (2) too young too qualify for Medicare/Medicaid, and had (3) diabetes, and (4) you were too poor to pay for for insulin, and (5) your parish were too poor to compensate, would you rather the US provided universal health care? I’ve painted this as an emotive argument, of course.

Bottom line: Scripture is silent on the matter of government aid for the ill. It would be, given the exigencies of the time. The question becomes, which is more just in the virtuous sense? Must you find means on your own, whether familial or ecclesial, or ought society to compensate?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Dear Vern,
You seem to love your tent maker more than the Magisterium of Mother Church.
OK, Fine, You might not be a Catholic, but then neither am I.
You seem to love your tent maker’s words more than the words of the Gospel. OK, that to is for your judgement.
Nowadays, some of the pronouncements of that tent maker are seen as uncharitable, and even un Christian by some, and that is their judgement, and it is as good as yours.
This thread seems to have sunk to the level of deifying the almighty dollar, and demonising Christian Socialism.
Remember, Our Lord spoke ill of Mammon, and those who serve her. Mammon is not money, it is the allocation of subservience to money. Setting up principles on rules defined by what is good for money. Capitalism is Mammon.
You need to use special pleading and weasel words to hide that conclusion, but if you worship capitalism, you worship Mammon, and Our Lord said: You cannot serve GOD and Mammon.
So Mammon is an antichrist, a satan.
And Mammon is Capitalism.
It is no accident that some Muslims see the Great Capiltalist as the Great Satan.
That conclusion can be drawn from our Gospels more easily than it can be from the Koran.
Don’t get me wrong now! I do not support Al Qaida, nor do I rejoice at loss of life.
Neither do I reject the concept of honest money.
But money must be a tool: a slave, not a master.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think we need to distinguish between St Paul’s levels of magisterial warrant. Some of his teaching is dominical (from the Lord), and some of his teaching is personal (from his heart).

So when Paul says:

And whoever does not provide for relatives and especially family members has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

we can disregard that? Is that your position?

Let’s get hypothetical.

If your mother were (1) a widow, and (2) too young too qualify for Medicare/Medicaid, and had (3) diabetes, and (4) you were too poor to pay for for insulin, and (5) your parish were too poor to compensate, would you rather the US provided universal health care? I’ve painted this as an emotive argument, of course.

As an aside, my mother died of breast cancer just short of her 52nd birthday, leaving a 13-year old daughter motherless.

And no, I would not want “universal health care.” I would not want it for the very reasons Saint Paul outlined. Only those who have no means of paying their own way, and who have no family to pay their way should be thrown on the Church or the community.

Bottom line: Scripture is silent on the matter of government aid for the ill. It would be, given the exigencies of the time. The question becomes, which is more just in the virtuous sense? Must you find means on your own, whether familial or ecclesial, or ought society to compensate?

Wrong. Paul speaks eloquently about the evils of “universal” charity and calls upon us in no uncertain language to do our duty.

And whoever does not provide for relatives and especially family members has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Nowhere do the scriptures say that healthcare should be universally guranteed by the government.

Should everyone receive healthcare? Yes! Does God want the government to provide it–you’ll never find that in scripture!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Nowhere do the scriptures say that healthcare should be universally guranteed by the government.

Should everyone receive healthcare? Yes! Does God want the government to provide it–you’ll never find that in scripture!

I think God wants** me** to care for my family, and to assist in caring for those who cannot pay their own way. He does not want me to fob off my responsibility with, “Oh, the Government should do that.”

And He most especially doesn’t want me to erect a massive and counter-productive bureaucracy that fails to meet its purpose – at great expense and loss of quality of care.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Dear Vern,
You seem to love your tent maker more than the Magisterium of Mother Church.

“Tent maker” – is that how you refer to Saint Paul?

Paul’s epistles are the Magisterium. He was an apostle, and he taught with his epistles.

Show me where any authoritative Catholic document denies Paul was an apostle!

OK, Fine, You might not be a Catholic,

I am a Catholic

but then neither am I.

That makes me feel a little better – I cannot imagine a Catholic dismissing Saint Paul as “your tent maker.”

You seem to love your tent maker’s words more than the words of the Gospel. OK, that to is for your judgement.

Have you read the Epistles of the Apostle Paul? He frequently refers to his teaching as “my gospel.”

Nowadays, some of the pronouncements of that tent maker are seen as uncharitable, and even un Christian by some, and that is their judgement, and it is as good as yours.

But it is not the judgement of the Catholic Church!!

This thread seems to have sunk to the level of deifying the almighty dollar, and demonising Christian Socialism.

I find that offensive and unChristian – when did I “deify the almighty dollar?” Gived me a quote where I did that.

Remember, Our Lord spoke ill of Mammon, and those who serve her.

He also spoke ill of those who under pretext of serving took money for it – like the money changers in the temple.

Mammon is not money, it is the allocation of subservience to money. Setting up principles on rules defined by what is good for money. Capitalism is Mammon.

Says who?

]QUOTE=Voco proTatiano;1834719]You need to use special pleading and weasel words to hide that conclusion, but if you worship capitalism, you worship Mammon, and Our Lord said: You cannot serve GOD and Mammon.

The man who called Saint Paul “your tent maker” accuses** me** of weasel words?

So Mammon is an antichrist, a satan.
And Mammon is Capitalism.

And who gave you the Kharisma of Infallibility?

It is no accident that some Muslims see the Great Capiltalist as the Great Satan.

So you agree with the Ayatollahs – and disagree with Saint Paul?

That conclusion can be drawn from our Gospels more easily than it can be from the Koran.

And I showed you the Epistles of Paul. Who clearly says we must pay our own way and support our families, not throw them on the goverment to support.

Don’t get me wrong now! I do not support Al Qaida, nor do I rejoice at loss of life.
Neither do I reject the concept of honest money.
But money must be a tool: a slave, not a master.

Methinks you doth protest too much.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

“Tent maker” – is that how you refer to Saint Paul?

When St Paul is speaking as a man of his time and culture, to me, he is just a tent maker: when he speaks as a Saint, uttering the words of Our Lord, then to me, he is St. Paul.
The two are not always the same.
Mother Church, in failng to illuminate this fact, adds to the confusion.

Paul’s epistles are the Magisterium. He was an apostle, and he taught with his epistles.

When the Magisterium utters words which conflict with some of the teachings of Paul, then they supercede that teaching. That is, as I understand, the principle of the Magisterium. That goes to the heart of infallibility.
What the Magisterium is saying, is that these words of Paul were not the words of Christ, but were his human judgement of the time, and circumstances thereof.

Show me where any authoritative Catholic document denies Paul was an apostle!

I do not deny that Paul was an apostle, and that some of his words rank as Gospel. What I am saying is that Paul was also a human being, and a fallible one at that. He himself said so.

I am a Catholic

I am a heretic

That makes me feel a little better – I cannot imagine a Catholic dismissing Saint Paul as “your tent maker.”

Have you read the Epistles of the Apostle Paul? He frequently refers to his teaching as “my gospel.”

Some I have read, some I have had read to me.
Some I accept as verbum Dei, some I do not.
This dual personality of Paul troubles me. To me he is a double agent. His primary aim seems to be to make Our Lord’s Gospel palatable to Rome, even if that makes that Gospel unrecognisible to Our Lord.

But it is not the judgement of the Catholic Church!!

Sorry, I forgot what that was about.

I find that offensive and unChristian – when did I “deify the almighty dollar?” Give me a quote where I did that.

Not in so many words, but your line of attack is that everything should be controlled by monetary principles, and any concern which is not ecconomically viable should be allowed to fail and disappear.

He also spoke ill of those who under pretext of serving took money for it – like the money changers in the temple.

I think I here said that Monetarism is Mammon.

Says who?

When Our Lord talks of Mammon, he is comparing her with GOD. Thus she is an entity of a similar if not like kind as GOD. for Our Lord does not compare apples and oranges.
So she is a god, and like all gods she represents a set of ruling principles which must be obeyed, and preferably loved.
Mammon seen in this light is in no way different from Monetarism.

You need to use special pleading and weasel words to hide that conclusion, but if you worship capitalism, you worship Mammon, and Our Lord said: You cannot serve GOD and Mammon.

The man who called Saint Paul “your tent maker” accuses** me** of weasel words?

I try to be truthful, and to describe things as I see them. I try not to be offensive, sometimes, I fail.

And who gave you the Kharisma of Infallibility?

I claim neither Charisma nor infallibilty. I find claims of infallibility troublesome.

So you agree with the Ayatollahs – and disagree with Saint Paul?

Sometimes I find truth in the words of my enemies, and sometimes I find falsehood in the words of my friends. All is not perfect.

And I showed you the Epistles of Paul. Who clearly says we must pay our own way and support our families, not throw them on the goverment to support.

And a quotation of the Magisterium was shewed to you which clearly superceded those words of Paul. Your denial of the superiority of the more recent words of the Magisterium in favour of your superceded words of Paul is the cause of me coming to this thread.

Methinks you doth protest too much.

Grammatically incorrect: ‘doth’ is 3rd sing archaic: not 2nd plur archaic.
Correct phrase reads:
Methinks my lord doth protest too much.
Pax vobiscum

 

[vern_humphrey]

When St Paul is speaking as a man of his time and culture, to me, he is just a tent maker: when he speaks as a Saint, uttering the words of Our Lord, then to me, he is St. Paul.
The two are not always the same.
Mother Church, in failng to illuminate this fact, adds to the confusion.
When the Magisterium utters words which conflict with some of the teachings of Paul, then they supercede that teaching. That is, as I understand, the principle of the Magisterium. That goes to the heart of infallibility.
What the Magisterium is saying, is that these words of Paul were not the words of Christ, but were his human judgement of the time, and circumstances thereof.
I do not deny that Paul was an apostle, and that some of his words rank as Gospel. What I am saying is that Paul was also a human being, and a fallible one at that. He himself said so.
I am a heretic

Some I have read, some I have had read to me.
Some I accept as verbum Dei, some I do not.
This dual personality of Paul troubles me. To me he is a double agent. His primary aim seems to be to make Our Lord’s Gospel palatable to Rome, even if that makes that Gospel unrecognisible to Our Lord.
Sorry, I forgot what that was about.
Not in so many words, but your line of attack is that everything should be controlled by monetary principles, and any concern which is not ecconomically viable should be allowed to fail and disappear.

I think I here said that Monetarism is Mammon.

When Our Lord talks of Mammon, he is comparing her with GOD. Thus she is an entity of a similar if not like kind as GOD. for Our Lord does not compare apples and oranges.
So she is a god, and like all gods she represents a set of ruling principles which must be obeyed, and preferably loved.
Mammon seen in this light is in no way different from Monetarism.
I try to be truthful, and to describe things as I see them. I try not to be offensive, sometimes, I fail.
I claim neither Charisma nor infallibilty. I find claims of infallibility troublesome.
Sometimes I find truth in the words of my enemies, and sometimes I find falsehood in the words of my friends. All is not perfect.

And a quotation of the Magisterium was shewed to you which clearly superceded those words of Paul. Your denial of the superiority of the more recent words of the Magisterium in favour of your superceded words of Paul is the cause of me coming to this thread.
Grammatically incorrect: ‘doth’ is 3rd sing archaic: not 2nd plur archaic.
Correct phrase reads:
Methinks my lord doth protest too much.
Pax vobiscum

I ask all the Catholics in this thread – do you agree with this, that the words of Paul are to e discounted and that “the Magisterium clearly supercedes the words of Paul?”

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I ask all the Catholics in this thread – do you agree with this, that the words of Paul are to e discounted and that “the Magisterium clearly supercedes the words of Paul?”

Vern!
You misquote me here.
This looks ingenuous.
I said that the Magisterium had clearly superceded SOME of the words of Paul, and that THOSE words which had been superceded were to be treated as the words of Paul, the fallible man, speaking to people of his time and circumstance, and not as verbum Dei.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuicumqueVult View Post
As a possible springboard, consider and comment on the following from the CCC:

Respect for health

2288 Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good.
Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance.

But that doesn’t say “universal health care.”

I cited Chapter 5 of 1 Timothy earlier. Here it is:

Vern, I know you are only speaking of your time and circumstance, and to you, your norms are normal.
However, the passage quoted by Quicumque Vult, which is from the Chatechism, discussing the Fifth Commandment: ‘Thou shalt not kill’, and all which flows from it, is quite clear.
No it does not say that what it says is universally applicable, but then neither does it deny such. That being the case, a right-minded person would normally assume that any statement which lacks specific exceptions, is intended to have none. That is, it is reasonable to assume that universality is intended.
In short, the ‘common good’ requires that ‘health care’ and ‘social assistance’ are universal requirements.
It is reasonable to expect that those who can pay, should pay.
It is also reasonable to expect that the more able should pay more, even for the same service.
But those in need should receive assistance regardless of their means.
That may sound to you like monetarism a la USA, but actually it is directly from Karl Marx:
'To each according to need, and from each according to ability.
Actually there is a strong suspicion that Marx lifted this epithet from ‘Acta Apostelorum’ .

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, I know you are only speaking of your time and circumstance, and to you, your norms are normal.
However, the passage quoted by Quicumque Vult, which is from the Chatechism, discussing the Fifth Commandment: ‘Thou shalt not kill’, and all which flows from it, is quite clear.
No it does not say that what it says is universally applicable, but then neither does it deny such. That being the case, a right-minded person would normally assume that any statement which lacks specific exceptions, is intended to have none. That is, it is reasonable to assume that universality is intended.
In short, the ‘common good’ requires that ‘health care’ and ‘social assistance’ are universal requirements.
It is reasonable to expect that those who can pay, should pay.
It is also reasonable to expect that the more able should pay more, even for the same service.
But those in need should receive assistance regardless of their means.
That may sound to you like monetarism a la USA, but actually it is directly from Karl Marx:
'To each according to need, and from each according to ability.
Actually there is a strong suspicion that Marx lifted this epithet from ‘Acta Apostelorum’ .

Show me where the Catechism - or any other authoritative Catholic document – mandates a government-controlled single-payer health care system.

The problem here is that some are advancing a Logicall Fallacy – the Fallacy of Limited Alternatives – and claiming that those who do not favor a government-controlled single-payer health care system are somehow evil and opposed to providing any health care.

But there are many alternative ways to provide health care – and experience shows people are best served when they have a wide variety of choices, so each person can choose what is best for himself or herself.

And finally, despite what some people have said here, we **do **have a moral obligation to care for our own families if we can. To say we do not is to make Millionaries at a Soup Kitchen out of us – everyone here would condemn a millionaire who had his free lunch at a soup kitchen. They’d call him a freeloader and a sponger and worse.

And they’d be right A millinoaire can afford to buy his own lunch! Why should we be any less offended when someone who can afford to pay his way sucks up medical resources without paying?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Show me where the Catechism - or any other authoritative Catholic document – mandates a government-controlled single-payer health care system.

Originally Posted by QuicumqueVult View Post
As a possible springboard, consider and comment on the following from the CCC:

Respect for health

2288 Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good.
Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance.

What is emboldened is a CLEAR mandate on the STATE to treat the common good as its responsibility.
Thus the provision of health care and social assistance is definitely the responsibility of the state.
Note: I do not say that the state must provide this service of itself, only that it must ensure that the service is in situ. That also means hat the state is responsible for guaranteeing that service.

The problem here is that some are advancing a Logicall Fallacy – the Fallacy of Limited Alternatives – and claiming that those who do not favor a government-controlled single-payer health care system are somehow evil and opposed to providing any health care.

It is a thin line between government controlled and government mandated and guaranteed. You deny the former, I insist that the Catechism demands the latter.

But there are many alternative ways to provide health care – and experience shows people are best served when they have a wide variety of choices, so each person can choose what is best for himself or herself.

I can see no reason for objecting to private concerns providing the service, provided that they comply with the state mandate, and ensure that health care and social assistance is provided unconditionally

And finally, despite what some people have said here, we **do **have a moral obligation to care for our own families if we can. To say we do not is to make Millionaries at a Soup Kitchen out of us – everyone here would condemn a millionaire who had his free lunch at a soup kitchen. They’d call him a freeloader and a sponger and worse.

My wife and I have just given up taking care of my wife’s mother, who has severe, and totally disabling arthritis, and loss of rationallity resulting from several strokes. We performed this task over a period of three years, giving up our own lives, putting our home into the hands of our children, and living 24 hours a day in her house, providing 24 /7 care. Fortunately, I had recently been made redundant, and provided with a minimal pension, but my wife had to give up her well paid job, which with my minimal pension, made ends meet. Her employer was good enough to put her on indefinite unpaid leave. Without the foregoing good fortune, we could not have carried out this labour. Without each other’s help an dedication, we could not have continued as long as we did. In the end, after 3 years, we had to give up, and place her in the care of the state. Had the state service not been there, then we do not know what we would have had to do, for even with the fantastic support we received from welfare organisations, the situation passed beyond our ability to cope, and we are able bodied people, and not lacking in resources.
Having been through this mill, I am loath to lay this as a duty at anyone elses door. 2000 years ago, Annie would have died shortly after her first stroke, probably in a matter of days. Medicine today is a very different ball game. A person who would have mercifully died in a few days 2000 years ago, is now maintained, to some degree, alive, for years. To expect family members to support or fund these measures is totally unreasonable. The resources required are potentially unlimited. This is a scenario in which only the state can be a meaningful player.

And they’d be right A millinoaire can afford to buy his own lunch! Why should we be any less offended when someone who can afford to pay his way sucks up medical resources without paying?

The way you prevent the millionaire from sucking up medical resources without paying, is to fund these resources out of income tax: ‘From each, according to ability’.
The state can use private insurance and private wellfare, but the state is responsible that this wellfare is in place where needed: ‘To each, according to need’

 

[vern_humphrey]

What is emboldened is a CLEAR mandate on the STATE to treat the common good as its responsibility.
Thus the provision of health care and social assistance is definitely the responsibility of the state.
Note: I do not say that the state must provide this service of itself, only that it must ensure that the service is in situ. That also means hat the state is responsible for guaranteeing that service.

It is a thin line between government controlled and government mandated and guaranteed. You deny the former, I insist that the Catechism demands the latter.

You are wrong in your assumption about what I want or deny.

I deny the Catechism mandates a single-payer, government run system.

I say such travesties as outlawing shopping for health insurance across state lines, forbidding unafilianted small business to band together to bargain for employee health insurance for their employees, and severely limiting Medical Savings Accounts is a violation of the Church’s teaching.

I can see no reason for objecting to private concerns providing the service, provided that they comply with the state mandate, and ensure that health care and social assistance is provided unconditionally

What do you mean by that – my little local clinic that has no surgeons should perform heart-ling transplants?

My wife and I have just given up taking care of my wife’s mother, who has severe, and totally disabling arthritis, and loss of rationallity resulting from several strokes. We performed this task over a period of three years, giving up our own lives, putting our home into the hands of our children, and living 24 hours a day in her house, providing 24 /7 care.

Exactly as Saint Paul would have you do.

Fortunately, I had recently been made redundant, and provided with a minimal pension, but my wife had to give up her well paid job, which with my minimal pension, made ends meet. Her employer was good enough to put her on indefinite unpaid leave. Without the foregoing good fortune, we could not have carried out this labour. Without each other’s help an dedication, we could not have continued as long as we did. In the end, after 3 years, we had to give up, and place her in the care of the state. Had the state service not been there, then we do not know what we would have had to do, for even with the fantastic support we received from welfare organisations, the situation passed beyond our ability to cope, and we are able bodied people, and not lacking in resources.

That doesn’t tell us about single-payer systems. It doesn’t prove there are only two alternatives – single payer system or nothing.

Having been through this mill, I am loath to lay this as a duty at anyone elses door. 2000 years ago, Annie would have died shortly after her first stroke, probably in a matter of days. Medicine today is a very different ball game. A person who would have mercifully died in a few days 2000 years ago, is now maintained, to some degree, alive, for years. To expect family members to support or fund these measures is totally unreasonable. The resources required are potentially unlimited. This is a scenario in which only the state can be a meaningful player.

Sounds like rationalizing dropping our own responsibilities.

I have no qualms about helping those who need help. I do have qualms about the millionaire who eats for free at the soup kitchen.

Should General Motors, for example, be required to cancel all employee health insurance so the government can take over? Who does that benefit?

The way you prevent the millionaire from sucking up medical resources without paying, is to fund these resources out of income tax: ‘From each, according to ability’.

How does that keep him from sucking up resources?

Take a look at public schools – they are financed and run just as you would have the health care system run. How is it the chilren of the well-to-do go to the best public schools, and the children of the poor go to the worst?

The state can use private insurance and private wellfare, but the state is responsible that this wellfare is in place where needed: ‘To each, according to need’

So we agree there are many ways to provide medical care – and the single-payer government-run system is neither the only way, nor mandated by the Church?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano View Post
What is emboldened is a CLEAR mandate on the STATE to treat the common good as its responsibility.
Thus the provision of health care and social assistance is definitely the responsibility of the state.
Note: I do not say that the state must provide this service of itself, only that it must ensure that the service is in situ. That also means hat the state is responsible for guaranteeing that service.

It is a thin line between government controlled and government mandated and guaranteed. You deny the former, I insist that the Catechism demands the latter.

You are wrong in your assumption about what I want or deny.

I deny the Catechism mandates a single-payer, government run system.

I say such travesties as outlawing shopping for health insurance across state lines, forbidding unafilianted small business to band together to bargain for employee health insurance for their employees, and severely limiting Medical Savings Accounts is a violation of the Church’s teaching.

What are you picking about here. Is English so obtuse, or is it my use thereof. Perhaps I abbreviated what I meant. As I see it, you want to deny that the state is responsible for providing a government controlled system of wellfare. I was agreeing with that. What I was however insisting, and to my understanding of English, it being plain, is that te government is responsible for ensuring a working wellfare sysyem is in place, and guaranteeing it. How it is physically implemented is not my concern, only that if the private sceme should collapse for any reason, the state will be there as back-stop, to pick up the pieces.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano View Post
I can see no reason for objecting to private concerns providing the service, provided that they comply with the state mandate, and ensure that health care and social assistance is provided unconditionally

What do you mean by that – my little local clinic that has no surgeons should perform heart-ling transplants?

Come on now, let us not be silly. Of course you do not expect the corner clinic to perform major surgery. What you expect to be in place is a facility available to ALL, unconditional on the needer of the service to pay for that service at the time of need.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano View Post
My wife and I have just given up taking care of my wife’s mother, who has severe, and totally disabling arthritis, and loss of rationallity resulting from several strokes. We performed this task over a period of three years, giving up our own lives, putting our home into the hands of our children, and living 24 hours a day in her house, providing 24 /7 care.

Exactly as Saint Paul would have you do.

Surely you do not believe that Paul would expect those not so well prepared for such a task, to perform it anyway, to the ruination of themselves, and their children? That would be very unChristian of him…End of part one

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

To Vern: Part Two:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano View Post
Fortunately, I had recently been made redundant, and provided with a minimal pension, but my wife had to give up her well paid job, which with my minimal pension, made ends meet. Her employer was good enough to put her on indefinite unpaid leave. Without the foregoing good fortune, we could not have carried out this labour. Without each other’s help an dedication, we could not have continued as long as we did. In the end, after 3 years, we had to give up, and place her in the care of the state. Had the state service not been there, then we do not know what we would have had to do, for even with the fantastic support we received from welfare organisations, the situation passed beyond our ability to cope, and we are able bodied people, and not lacking in resources.

As I said, we were very fortunate in our circumstances. The greater majority of people, in a situation very little worse than ours, would not have been able to cope.

That doesn’t tell us about single-payer systems. It doesn’t prove there are only two alternatives – single payer system or nothing.

I can’t tell what tou are getting at here. You seem to be stuck in a groove. No-one as far as I know is calling for what you call a single payer scheme. The responsibility of the state is not to run the scheme, only to ensure that the scheme is running, and guaranteed by the state. Funding could be by private insurance, or public insurance, or even central funds.
With private insurance, there is the problem that some insurers will not handle high risk cases. Mammon is greedy and lacking in mercy.
With public insurance, the line between insurance funding and central funding is commonly missing, but thge pretanse of not using central funds adds a complication to the paperwork.
With central funding from income tax, you achieve the requirement of: ‘From each, according to ability’.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano View Post
Having been through this mill, I am loath to lay this as a duty at anyone elses door. 2000 years ago, Annie would have died shortly after her first stroke, probably in a matter of days. Medicine today is a very different ball game. A person who would have mercifully died in a few days 2000 years ago, is now maintained, to some degree, alive, for years. To expect family members to support or fund these measures is totally unreasonable. The resources required are potentially unlimited. This is a scenario in which only the state can be a meaningful player.

Sounds like rationalizing dropping our own responsibilities.

Do not make that judgement until you have been through that mill. I wish it upon nobody.

I have no qualms about helping those who need help. I do have qualms about the millionaire who eats for free at the soup kitchen.

If the millionaire is paying his proper millionaire’s income tax, and not bilking the state, then I have no objection to him using the soup kitchen. He might learn humility thereby, or meet someone he might choose to help in a more effective manner.

Should General Motors, for example, be required to cancel all employee health insurance so the government can take over? Who does that benefit?

You are wearing out your hobby-horse. I have not, and to my knowledge, no-one else has, cried for the dissolution of private wellfare insurance. I/we have raised the objection that private companies tend to dump the more needy cases, leaving them uninsurable when they are in the greates need. But that is the nature of Mammon.
End of Part Two.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

To Vern: Part Three:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano View Post
The way you prevent the millionaire from sucking up medical resources without paying, is to fund these resources out of income tax: ‘From each, according to ability’.

You clearly did not read or at least you failed to understand this the first time. What is the problem?

How does that keep him from sucking up resources?

It does not stop him, but as a tax-payer, he has paid for them. so in that sense it stops him from bilking the system.
As an aside, we have on our TV a program about a group of millionaires who, under-cover, go into soup-kitchens and welfare-shelters, pretending to be down-and-outs. They befreind the unfortunates, and see how they live. The aim is to find deserving cases for largesse, but not a few of the cases have resulted in Damascus road experiences for the millionaires.

Take a look at public schools – they are financed and run just as you would have the health care system run. How is it the chilren of the well-to-do go to the best public schools, and the children of the poor go to the worst?

I agree: it is impossible to keep Mammon out of the system. But that is no reason to hand the system over to Mammon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano View Post
The state can use private insurance and private wellfare, but the state is responsible that this wellfare is in place where needed: ‘To each, according to need’

So we agree there are many ways to provide medical care – and the single-payer government-run system is neither the only way, nor mandated by the Church?
Isn’t that where we came it?
The state is responsible that provision be made, not for providing, unless no-one-else will provide. But that is the bottom line.

 

[Durendin]

So we agree there are many ways to provide medical care – and the single-payer government-run system is neither the only way, nor mandated by the Church?

I would agree with that, but the provision of healthcare by governments has (what I would consider to be) a moral superiority to that provided by insurance cover.

No I appreciate that drug companies make and sell medicinal products for a profit and I can appreciate that, but I sincerely doubt that an insurance company isn’t caring more about their profits than my health. If it was in their interest for me to stop receiving care and expire?

I’m now a financial burden and welcome to the culture of death?