Universal Healthcare, Is it scriptural?

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Unless I am mistaken, the mortality rate in both countries is 100%.

Lifespan has a very strong genetic component – the best way to live a long time is to select parents who lived a long time. So when comparing Canada and the US, you must stratify the population – comparing like with like. If you do that, you will find certain groups tend to have longer life spans than others – and Canada’s population is made up of more of the longer-living groups than the United States population.

Maybe the USA is the Land of Youth
And maybe someone can explain why this is an issue. Universal healthcare, “socialist” ? “Against Scripture” ? Do not compute, sorry

In answer to the question in post 1 - it might be argued that using lawnmowers is a sign of lack of faith, & they aren’t in the Bible: but is anyone going to get rid of theirs on that account ?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gottle of Geer

Quote:
Originally Posted by vern humphrey View Post
Unless I am mistaken, the mortality rate in both countries is 100%.

Lifespan has a very strong genetic component – the best way to live a long time is to select parents who lived a long time. So when comparing Canada and the US, you must stratify the population – comparing like with like. If you do that, you will find certain groups tend to have longer life spans than others – and Canada’s population is made up of more of the longer-living groups than the United States population.

Maybe the USA is the Land of Youth

Big Mac = Heart Attack!
The US population is youthful because, due to national obesety, there is a reduced pensioner population.
Someone who is going to die before 50 is not going to happily pay for medicare for pensioners, who are seen as parasites.
Also, this population seems to be suicidal, for, they, seeing what is in store for the survivors, choose, it seems, not to survive, by continuing their lethal life-styles.
This population then seems to favour euthanasia or suicide for the over 50s.
Mammon has seduced a population so!

And maybe someone can explain why this is an issue. Universal healthcare, “socialist” ? “Against Scripture” ? Do not compute, sorry

If you dare to read between the lines of the Gospel, it is clear that Our Lord is advocating a New Order. He gives examples of how people are expected to behave in this New Order, and he tells that the New Order starts here and now, (there and then). He makes it clear that this New Order is a reflection of the Heavenly Order, and commands his followers to strive continuously for its better implementation. This thus is a commandment upon all those who are his followers to implement this New Order. Yes it is represented as a Heavenly order, but the code is abundantly clear, and we recite it at EVERY Mass: ‘On Earth, as it is in Heaven’.
Paul, unfortuneately, in order to hide this political ambition from Rome, chose to hide this, at least from the Romans. Unfortuneately, he hid it too well, and many, if not most of Our Lord’s followers were deceived into thinking that this was a purely spiritual movement. It was never meant that way from the beginning.
Those who profess to follow Our Lord should pay more attention to the Gospel, and less to the Epistles.
The Gospels are the words of the living witnesses.
The Epistles are the comments of a ¿converted? double agent.

In answer to the question in post 1 - it might be argued that using lawnmowers is a sign of lack of faith, & they aren’t in the Bible: but is anyone going to get rid of theirs on that account ?

---

Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Is the main reason for this thread a discusion of whether the Bible advocates healthcare to the point that the government should provide it

OR

Advocacy of government mandated universal healthcare on “scriptural grounds” to advance a left-wing political agenda?

I will say this: I would die before I would vote for anyone or any party that even though they advocated the most noble healthcare system in the entire world–would also support murdering babies!

People who advocate universal healtcare for everyone I do not have a problem with–people who use the issue to try to win back the votes of Catholics who will not vote for baby murderering political parties–I do!

Jerry:

Let me see if I have this right - Our priority as Catholics is to stop the scourge of Abortion, even at the risk of failing to deal with problems such as access to health care, poverty and unemplyment. But, Scripture requires us as individuals and churches to help the poor and those who are in need, and part of ending Abortion will be taking care of the woman who decide to keep their babies and the children who are born to them.

I think we all know from Pope John Paul II’s encyclical, Evangelium Vitae, and other writings, that the Church regards Abortion and the Culture of Death as the greater threat to human souls and dignity.

That doesn’t mean that we aren’t obligated to do what we can without interfering with out attempts to outlaw Abortion and to replace the Culture of Death with a Culture of Life. How best to do that is a prudential judgment, and one which will be proven by being worked out in real life.

I understand Governor Mitt Romney of Mass. put something together a health insurance systam that shows some promise.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Actually, the scripture ORIGINALLY said: ‘kill not’. Later jewish revisionists altered the text to better match their customs.

Voco:

Could you please back that up with an article?

Esp. since the rest of the Torah is so explicit as to what is to be done to those who deliberately murder the innocent.

What you are promoting is known as Marcianism, a heresy which claimed that the God of the Old Testament was not the God of the New Testament. That’s contradicted by the Early Church Fathers who claimed that the New Testament was contained within the Old Testament which presaged and promised it.

That’s why St Paul claimed, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17 NIV When the only Scriptures were the Old Testament and the New Oral “Traditions” of the Gospels.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Jerry-Jet]

We should all take care of the poor and those who are sick.

If any democratic society chooses to do that through socialized medicine it is OK.

That does not mean the Jesus requires that approach.

What is wrong is when people MIX the secular belief that man can solve his problems and fully take care of himself–SECULAR Socialism if you will–with Jesus’ commands for us to take care of the sick and the poor.

If any government program help us to achieve Jesus’ commands that is great!

It doesn’t follow that since that is possible then all such government programs are imperative and we are obligated to follow them if we follow Jesus!

That is a crock!

An how many times do I have to say this–the abolition of the murder of only1 baby takes precedence over every other need in the entire world!

Why? Because that is how sacred life is!

Why is it that people wouln’t vote for a pro-slavery politician no matter if they were for a million other good things but will turn around and say that it is OK to vote for baby murderers because the baby murderers are also for other good things?!

If someone wants to vote pro-life Democrat–that is fine. If someone wants to get the government to provide more healthcare to take care of the sick that is great, too! If someone wants to emphasize to others Jesus’ command to us to take care of the sick and the poor–more power to them!

Just don’t try to MIX socialism with Our Lord’s commands.

That reduces our Lord to a mere politician!

I’ll evern go farther–if Our Lord himself came down to Earth and gave us the perfect legislation to enact the perfect healthcare system for the entire country and the Congress passed it along with one other provision that provided for the abortion of only 1 baby I would oppose it with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength!

Why? Because you don’t mix any amount of good with what is INTRINSICALLY evil because those things that are INTRINSICALLY evil are ALWAYS unacceptable.

If slavery is unacceptable and using the “N” word is unacceptable don’t come and tell me that murdering innocent babies is acceptable!

I don’t buy that! I also don’t buy any party that tries to sell that no matter how many other good things they try to give with the unacceptable and yes healthcare is one of those good things!

And that is what this discussion is truely about for alot of people who push universal healthcare. If it is only about universal healthcare I have no problem with people pursuing such a concept–the fact is though for many people who push universal heathcare it also comes with other evils with it!

As long as universal healthcare includes abortion it is of Satan and will always be totally unacceptable!

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Jerry:

You might be a bit hardcore in the way you stated the issue, but I thnk you are getting to the heart of the matter. As long as we have legalized Abortion, Government financed Healthcare would provide Abortion On Demand Along with Contraception and Sterilization. According to the EU and the UN, Abortion, and access to Abortion, are RIGHTS. Given those precedents, it would be very hard for the government not to pay for it and require that Ob-Gyns either perform Abortions or prescribe Contraceptives, and to require that pharmacists fill the prescriptions, under a Universal Healthcare System.

For those of us who think the slaughter of some 1.8 million babies per year is horiffic, wait until the government pays for it and encourages them by giving Contraceptives to young people when it has been shown to encourage promiscuity and dangerous sexual behavior.

At the same time, there is the danger that the Government, in order to save money at a later date, will impliment a variant of the Grundigen University Hospital Proticals, which is being implimented in Holland and other countries in Europe.

A better system for the time being would be for churches such as the Catholic Church to delelop a system whereby CATHOLICS who attend Mass and Tithe either in money or time are covered for healthcare costs for themselves and their families.

A Church-Based system could avoid the problems listed above while giving Christians the ultimate reason to tithe, the welfare of their brothers and sisters in Christ and their duties to the same.

If someone wants to discuss this, I would be willing to start a thread to discuss how something like this would be implimented. Now, unlike the above, which has to be left until AFTER the Abortion issue has been resolved, I believe Scripture commands us to do this for each other.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano View Post
Actually, the scripture ORIGINALLY said: ‘kill not’. Later jewish revisionists altered the text to better match their customs.

Voco:

Could you please back that up with an article?

Hi Michael,
It is well known by now, that around, and after AD300, the Jews, in order to define themselves as different from Christians, re-edited their Torah, so that today, the normative script is very different from LXX. Now LXX is a Greek translattion of a no longer extant Hebrew, and some say that the translation could have been better. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls seem to support LXX against the modern, and it is clear that NT references to OT script, refer to LXX.
The Jewish revision also excluded ‘Enoch’ and ‘Jubilees’, which can be cross referenced to NT text.
As for articles, try Google search on ‘thou shalt not kill’ and ‘hebrew’
The second hit is: thenazareneway.com/thou_shalt_not_kill.htm
and the Hebrew found is: ‘lo tirtzack’, which translates nicely into Latin as ‘non occidere’ : ‘not to kill’.
The form of the decalog was incomplete without the title, which completed the garammatical form:
‘Legis est:’
‘non occidere’
The law is:
not to kill.

You will of course find references to ‘thou shalt do no murder’
viz:
ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/001102_ThouShaltNotMurder.html
which quotes a different hebrew: ‘lo ratsah’.
You might notice that the former site is Christian, allbeit heretical, while the latter is Jewish.
But if you read through the Jewish site carefully, you will find that the Jewish writer in the end, supports the KJV translation: ‘thou shalt not kill’.

Esp. since the rest of the Torah is so explicit as to what is to be done to those who deliberately murder the innocent.

What you are promoting is known as Marcianism, a heresy which claimed that the God of the Old Testament was not the God of the New Testament. That’s contradicted by the Early Church Fathers who claimed that the New Testament was contained within the Old Testament which presaged and promised it.

I do not understand your reasoning here: I make no such claim. I only assert that LXX should be given better credance than the modern Jewish Torah, as it is supported by the NT, DSS, and VL.

That’s why St Paul claimed, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17 NIV When the only Scriptures were the Old Testament and the New Oral “Traditions” of the Gospels.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

---

He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8 NIV

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Voco proTatiano

I’m not fluent in Greek, so I’ll have to trust Strongs on this one. According to StudyLight.org, the LXX translates as “Thou shalt not commt murder” (Strongs Number 5407).

studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=exodus+20%3A13&section=0&it=nas&ot=lxx&nt=na&Enter=Perform+Search

Please understand. I’m not only basing what I’m saying on the translation of the LXX or of the Hebrew, I’m basing what I’m saying on the punishment that God demands for the crime. There is no way God could demand killing for mere accidental killing or killing in self-defense, and that is what God does in 2 distinct places:

Numbers 35:16-21,30-31 NIV

*" 'If a man strikes someone with an iron object so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. Or if anyone has a stone in his hand that could kill, and he strikes someone so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. Or if anyone has a wooden object in his hand that could kill, and he hits someone so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death. If anyone with malice aforethought shoves another or throws something at him intentionally so that he dies or if in hostility he hits him with his fist so that he dies, that person shall be put to death; he is a murderer. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when he meets him.

" 'Anyone who kills a person is to be put to death as a murderer only on the testimony of witnesses. But no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.

" ‘Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die. He must surely be put to death.’ "*

biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=4&chapter=35&version=31&context=chapter

Deuteronomy 19:11-13,15 NIV

*But if a man hates his neighbor and lies in wait for him, assaults and kills him, and then flees to one of these cities, the elders of his town shall send for him, bring him back from the city, and hand him over to the avenger of blood to die. Show him no pity. You must purge from Israel the guilt of shedding innocent blood, so that it may go well with you.

One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.*

biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=5&chapter=19&version=31&context=chapter

And, I just read both of your links - Neither one supports your contention that Jewish Scribes changed the wording of the Old Testament. and, The Second is neutral concerning whether the commandment said “Kill” or “Murder”.

I would hope that the fact that the Hebrew Scrolls from the Dead Sea Scrolls shows 99.94% agreement with the Masoretic Text (known as the Aleppo Codex Created by Aaron ben Moses ben Asher in 930 A.D.) would put claims of deliberate alteration to rest. As the Torah was written in all Consonants, the Masoretes developed a unified vowel system so that future generation would be able to pronounce the Hebrew. The other thing they did was to try to make some sense of the various versions of the Hebrew Torah.

The first official Hebrew Bible was published by a Christian printer, Daniel Bomberg, in Venice in 1524-25.

jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Masoretic.html

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Voco proTatiano
{ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .}
And, I just read both of your links - Neither one supports your contention that Jewish Scribes changed the wording of the Old Testament. and, The Second is neutral concerning whether the commandment said “Kill” or “Murder”.

I would hope that the fact that the Hebrew Scrolls from the Dead Sea Scrolls shows 99.94% agreement with the Masoretic Text (known as the Aleppo Codex Created by Aaron ben Moses ben Asher in 930 A.D.) would put claims of deliberate alteration to rest. As the Torah was written in all Consonants, the Masoretes developed a unified vowel system so that future generation would be able to pronounce the Hebrew. The other thing they did was to try to make some sense of the various versions of the Hebrew Torah.

The first official Hebrew Bible was published by a Christian printer, Daniel Bomberg, in Venice in 1524-25.

jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Masoretic.html

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

Dear Michael,
I accept what you have here said. My assertion is not that the Masoretes made wholesale alterations to the text, they just did what editors of the Vulgate did:
Adjusted apparent errors to make sense, and omitted texts that they considered non-canonical.
Unfortuneately, changes of context, and etymological drift were not properly taken into account in every case, and political pressure affected judgementr as to what should be canonical.
For instance, in the Vulgate we have an instance of the former error, wher ‘primus’ was substituted for ‘novissimus’ in the parable of the two sons in the vinyard.
Obviously justice requires ‘primus’ be the answer, but the context of Roman law, which here defies justice, as does military law to this day, demands the answer be ‘novissimus’.
Among the books the Masoretes excluded were the Deuterocanonicals, and Enoch, and Jubillees, the latter two which were seen to give too much support to the Saviourship of Our Lord.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Dear Michael,
I accept what you have here said. My assertion is not that the Masoretes made wholesale alterations to the text, they just did what editors of the Vulgate did:
Adjusted apparent errors to make sense, and omitted texts that they considered non-canonical.
Unfortuneately, changes of context, and etymological drift were not properly taken into account in every case, and political pressure affected judgementr as to what should be canonical.
For instance, in the Vulgate we have an instance of the former error, wher ‘primus’ was substituted for ‘novissimus’ in the parable of the two sons in the vinyard.
Obviously justice requires ‘primus’ be the answer, but the context of Roman law, which here defies justice, as does military law to this day, demands the answer be ‘novissimus’.
Among the books the Masoretes excluded were the Deuterocanonicals, and Enoch, and Jubillees, the latter two which were seen to give too much support to the Saviourship of Our Lord.

Voco proTatiano:

I’ll let the Latin Scholars debate the appropriate translation of the sections of the Volgate you cited.

As you’ll recall, the Deuterocananical Books were removed from the Jerusalem Canon at the Council of Jamnia in 85-90 A.D… For the life of me, I can’t see why we’d hold Jewish compilers 8 centuries later for what that council did, as the Masoretes were compiling the texts allowed by the Council and excluding those excluded by the council.

We obey and submit to our coucils, shouldn’t Jews obey theirs?

FYI, the Council of Jamnia was primarily concerned with trying to eliminate those books which encouraged revolt against foreign occupation, as that had led to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple of Jerusalem. They dealt with “the problem of the Narzarites” by having all guests and new members to every Synagogue read 4 “Curses” against “Jesus of Nazareth” and those who followed Him.

Protestants have been making the case that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, the Savior of the world and the Son of God from the Old Testament without the Deuterocanonical Books for over 450 years. It would seem, therefore, that, if there was a plot to destroy the O.T.'s support for the “Saviorship of Christ”, it didn’t even come close to succeeding.

The Missing Books haven’t kept “Jews for Jesus” from accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. My question is why are we evangelizing them?

And, What does this have to do with erecting a humane system for providing Healthcare for our brothers and sisters in Christ that at the same time doesn’t pay for Abortions and Artificial Contraception?

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Voco proTatiano:

I’ll let the Latin Scholars debate the appropriate translation of the sections of the Volgate you cited.

Hi Michael,
What I cited was nothing to do with translation from the Latin, it was more to do with translation into Latin, or modification of a Latin text.
Stuttgart, a scholorly attempt at reconstructing St. Jerome’s work, supports ‘novissimus’ = ‘last’ or ‘youngest’, while
Clementine supports ‘primus’ = ‘first’.
Fuldensis supports Stuttgart in this division.

As you’ll recall, the Deuterocananical Books were removed from the Jerusalem Canon at the Council of Jamnia in 85-90 A.D… For the life of me, I can’t see why we’d hold Jewish compilers 8 centuries later for what that council did, as the Masoretes were compiling the texts allowed by the Council and excluding those excluded by the council.

I bow to your superior knowledge of Jewish History. My knowledge thereof is somewhat vague.
I was aware that the Jews had defined them selves as Jews and not Christians quite late after Our Lord’s passion. I thought it was about AD300. Certainly, at this time, they thereby defined themselves as ‘antichrist’.

We obey and submit to our coucils, shouldn’t Jews obey theirs?

Absolutely.

FYI, the Council of Jamnia was primarily concerned with trying to eliminate those books which encouraged revolt against foreign occupation, as that had led to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple of Jerusalem. They dealt with “the problem of the Narzarites” by having all guests and new members to every Synagogue read 4 “Curses” against “Jesus of Nazareth” and those who followed Him.

But then, as I said, the motivation was political, not theological.

Protestants have been making the case that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, the Savior of the world and the Son of God from the Old Testament without the Deuterocanonical Books for over 450 years. It would seem, therefore, that, if there was a plot to destroy the O.T.'s support for the “Saviorship of Christ”, it didn’t even come close to succeeding.

The Missing Books haven’t kept “Jews for Jesus” from accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. My question is why are we evangelizing them?

And, What does this have to do with erecting a humane system for providing Healthcare for our brothers and sisters in Christ that at the same time doesn’t pay for Abortions and Artificial Contraception?

Yes, we have here seriuos thread drift.
I think the cause thereof is my contention, that those who follow the Pauline Epistles in favour of following the Witnessed Gospel, tend to right wing politics, and those who favour Our Lord’s Gospel over subsequent comment and tradition, tend to left wing politics.
Of that, I am not ashamed, and I freely confess that I only use the commentaries and traditions as a pointer to find the hidden truths in the Gospel.
That is, by reading between the lines, to get a feel for the political environment of the time, we can see the true meaning behind some of Our Lord’s more curious sayings.
For instance, all the Nazorites understood that ‘Render unto GOD, that which is GOD’s’ meant that Caesar should get nothing, for EVERYTHING belongs to GOD!

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

As a closer on this point, the right wing seems to favour letting the whole world suffer, incuding the unborn, if they cannot have their way, while the left wing favour accepting that this is an imperfect plan, and the price of giving considerable assistance to the needy majority will have a cost to a minority.

 

[thommie]

This subject is on my mind a lot these days, as my oldest son has cancer (Hodgkin’s Disease) and is currently undergoing treatment.

He has health insurance, which is actually COBRA from my employer. The hurtles that the insurance company is putting up for him to avoid payment for his treatment are phenomenal. Even though this was not a pre-existing condition, they are actually asking for proof or prior coverage for a period in which they themselves covered him! He may be financially ruined, despite having health insurance…for which he has been paying hundreds of dollars per month.

If the U.S. does end up with socialized medicine, it seems to me that the fault will lie with the insurance companies, who I would think would be the biggest losers, at least financially. Their greed, incompetance and apathy may induce the masses to demand government-sponsered health care - which they may regret once they see what it is like.

I think that government-sponsered health care may be Scripturally neutral. If the government taxes us to pay for universal health care, that’s one thing. But the really Scriptural approach, IMHO, is that of the Shriners and the St. Judes Hospitals, who provide the services to those who can’t afford them, supported by voluntary contributions.

 

[mlchance]

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

Nor does the CCC say that it is the government’s job to pay for everyone’s health care via widespread redistribution of private finances while at the same relying on non-socialist countries to do the lion’s share of research and development (which is precisely what Canada does in relation to the U.S.).

There is no mandate in either Scripture or Tradition for government-run universal health care. Given the Church’s long-standing and solid rebuke of socialism as both a form of government and an economic system, one can quite sensibly reject such programs as the NHS or the failed “Hillarycare” proposal of the Clinton administration.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[josephdavid]

The Catholic Church has always been against socialism and it is a fact that when Jesus separates the sheep and the goats that the sheep will be on the right and the goats will be on the left.

Having the government provide universal healthcare–while laudable–does not gurantee that our own responsibility for taking care of the “least of our bretheren” has been fulfilled.

I will say this–if anyone is upset because the government does not provide this to everyone–they can take whatever additional money that the government would require in taxes to fund such a program out of their own pocket and donate it for the healthcare of the poor!

Is not the government a body that represents society and according to our Constitution the government is made up of inviduals who are elected by their constituants to protect the general welfare of It’s citizens (preamble of the Constitution)?

 

[josephdavid]

catholiccharitiesusa.org/advocacy/legislative/index.cfm?cfid=13109491&cftoken=62320406

Also
“Faced with a world today where so many people are suffering from want, the council asks individuals and governments to remember the saying of the Fathers: “Feed the people dying of hunger, because if you do not feed them you are killing them,” (I Cor 7:5) and it urges them according to their ability to share and dispose of their goods to help others, above all by giving them aid which will enable them to help and development themselves.” The Church and the Modern World, #69.

“Every person has a fundamental right to life— the right that makes all other rights possible. Each person also has a right to the conditions for living a decent life—faith and family life, food and shelter, education and employment, health care and housing. We also have a duty to secure and respect these rights not only for ourselves, but for others, and to fulfill our responsibilities to our families, to each other, and to the larger society.” —USCCB Administrative Committee, Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility, p. 14
“The Catholic way is to recognize the essential role and the complementary responsibilities of families, communities, the market, and government to work together to overcome poverty and advance human dignity.” A Place at the Table, pg. 18
“Therefore political leaders, and citizens of rich countries considered as individuals, especially if they are Christians, have the moral obligation, according to the degree of each one’s responsibility, to take into consideration, in personal decisions and decisions of government, this relationship of universality, this interdependence which exists between their conduct and the poverty and underdevelopment which exists between their conduct and the poverty of so many millions of people.” On Social Concern, #9.

“The needs of the poor take priority over the desires of the rich; the rights of workers over the maximization of profits; the preservation of the environment over uncontrolled industrial expansion; the production to meet social needs over production for military purposes.” (Address on Christian Unity in a Technological Age [Toronto, Sept. 14, 1984] in Origins 14:16 [Oct. 4, 1984]). Economic Justice for All, #94.

 

[mlchance]

Let’s isolate just one quote (with emphases added):

“The needs of the poor take priority over the desires of the rich…”

Okay, then. First, no argument. Needs before desires.

But what about rights? Do needs come before rights? IOW, do the needs of the poor trump my right to keep the product of my own labor? If so, what are the limits? If not, then what does that say about my moral obligations? Furthermore, define “rich” and “poor” in a way that makes sense. All the while, keep in mind that mandatory charity is a contradiction in terms.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[josephdavid]

Let’s isolate just one quote (with emphases added):

Okay, then. First, no argument. Needs before desires.

But what about rights? Do needs come before rights? IOW, do the needs of the poor trump my right to keep the product of my own labor? If so, what are the limits? If not, then what does that say about my moral obligations? Furthermore, define “rich” and “poor” in a way that makes sense. All the while, keep in mind that mandatory charity is a contradiction in terms.

– Mark L. Chance.

Matthew 19
21 Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, 16 go, sell what you have and give to (the) poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this statement, he went away sad, for he had many possessions.
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Amen, I say to you, it will be hard for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.
24 Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and said, “Who then can be saved?”
26 Jesus looked at them and said, “For human beings this is impossible, but for God all things are possible.”
27 Then Peter said to him in reply, “We have given up everything and followed you. What will there be for us?”
28 Jesus said to them, "Amen, I say to you that you who have followed me, in the new age, when the Son of Man is seated on his throne of glory, will yourselves sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
29 And everyone who has given up houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive a hundred times more, and will inherit eternal life.
30 But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first.

With some cynasism mind you will I think that what determines who is wealthy and who is poor is: The person who asks themselves.“hmmm…should I buy the 50” Plasma or the 60"?"
versus the single mother asking herself…“Should I pay the gas bill… or get the medication to treat his athesma… or food for the table?”

 

[mlchance]

Matthew 19…

So, IOW, you don’t actually have any real answers to the questions?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[bankerdavid]

Mel>>**
Are there longer waiting lines simply because of universal health care though? Or are there longer waiting lines because there are less doctors and hospitals are closing? There are less doctors because many go to the U.S. for the buck instead of staying in their country to heal the sick. I’d say universal health care honours God more than doctors who leave their country for another just for the money.**

Whichever the reason for long waiting lines, it’s a bad thing to not be able to get the care you need when you need it. With universal health care, there’s no incentive for doctors to provide quality health care (unless they just want to do it) because they will get paid the same whether their quality is good or not, and have less chance of being fired if they do screw up. Now, should we work to provide affordable health care to all? Certainly. I recently had to go to emergency because I cut my hand badly. It required 3 stitches, the doctor’s time to clean it, stitch it and dress it, and it cost $1600 to my insurance! The price is outrageous. Let’s try to make every-day care affordable.

Also, in this country, you cannot be turned away from a hospital because of inability to pay. So, in effect, we already have universal health care.

 

[josephdavid]

So, IOW, you don’t actually have any real answers to the questions?

– Mark L. Chance.

What part of my post did you not understand?