US bishops approve new issue of voters' guide, 'Faithful Citizenship' [CC]

[QuidVeritasEst]

We spend about $1.5 trillion on social security and medicare alone. There is plenty to cut there, starting with the idea of personal responsibility. If you are able to work and provide for yourself, there is no reason why you should be collecting the dole.

So you think medical care should be within the market? The rich are better able to preserve their lives than the poor?

 

[stinkcat_14]

So you think medical care should be within the market? The rich are better able to preserve their lives than the poor?

The problem with medicare is that it is a huge subsidy to both rich and poor alike. There is no reason why the government should subsidize healthcare to those who can either earn it themselves or pay for it themselves. If people cannot work, I think it is reasonable for the government to get involved. But to transfer money from working people to people who choose not to work is immoral in my opinion.

 

[pnewton]

The problem with medicare is that it is a huge subsidy to both rich and poor alike.

I do not think it is always a subsidy. I know I have been paying into the Medicare system for most of my life, believing that I will receive this benefit at some point, even if the age needs to be moved back. Rich and poor receive benefit because all pay classes into it.

 

[ringil]

Its crystal clear why some are not fans of the Bishops guide on voting.

They simply want for Bishops to state that Abortion and Same Sex Marriage, or at least a candidates lip service to these issues, outweigh any single issue such as poverty, war, immigration, but outweigh all and every combination of issues.

They want a guide which would steer voters towards choosing GOP candidates and since the guide doesn’t do that- they don’t like the guide.

It’s pretty simple.

 

[Path_Finder]

Its crystal clear why some are not fans of the Bishops guide on voting.

They simply want for Bishops to state that Abortion and Same Sex Marriage, or at least a candidates lip service to these issues, outweigh any single issue such as poverty, war, immigration, but outweigh all and every combination of issues.

They want a guide which would steer voters towards choosing GOP candidates and since the guide doesn’t do that- they don’t like the guide.

It’s pretty simple.

If abortion and same sex marriage is so important for one, by all means, the choice is theirs to vote for such an evil but I hope the same persons will not taunt others that some how, the pro-abortion politicians are good guys.

Besides that, why isn’t the turmoil created in Egypt and Libya seeing Democrats held to the same standard?

Besides that, if poverty, civil rights is such an issue, why is their so much more strife now than under the previous administration?

In other words, on war and poverty, looks like some people may deserve a big fat F in their grading.

Besides these items being called “non-negotiables”, the Pope and Bishops have devoted much time to this, the Pope and Bishops is seems one likes to quote so often if it is talking about Islam and Immigration.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I do not think it is always a subsidy. I know I have been paying into the Medicare system for most of my life, believing that I will receive this benefit at some point, even if the age needs to be moved back. Rich and poor receive benefit because all pay classes into it.

The only part you pay into is medicare part A. That is all the payroll tax covers. Part B has about 75% of its funding coming from general tax revenue.

 

[pnewton]

Besides these items being called “non-negotiables”, the Pope and Bishops have devoted much time to this,.

We need remember though that these items were called “non-negotiable” by Catholic Answers, and the term has grown, being used by EWTN, Pope Benedict, and referenced by Pope Francis, though not all use the term for the exact same issues. We also know that no moral position is really “negotiable.” This is why I found the last USCCB voter’s guide to be more informative than the CA pamphlet, though both have their place.

 

[JimG]

The problem with medicare is that it is a huge subsidy to both rich and poor alike. There is no reason why the government should subsidize healthcare to those who can either earn it themselves or pay for it themselves. If people cannot work, I think it is reasonable for the government to get involved. But to transfer money from working people to people who choose not to work is immoral in my opinion.

I pretty much agree with your position on Medicare and Social Security, even though I’m now a beneficiary of both. But I think that Medicare is mainly a subsidy to doctors, hospitals and pharmacists and others in the field of medicine. No Medicare money goes to me; it goes to my doctors. And the medical personnel know just how often they can have a patient return for a routine test and still get paid, so that’s what they schedule. They know the Medicare rules in order to maximize the Medicare payout.

If all insurance including Medicare were to be limited to catastrophic coverage only, so that patients paid for the great majority of their own care, prices would drop dramatically.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I pretty much agree with your position on Medicare and Social Security, even though I’m now a beneficiary of both. But I think that Medicare is mainly a subsidy to doctors, hospitals and pharmacists and others in the field of medicine. No Medicare money goes to me; it goes to my doctors. And the medical personnel know just how often they can have a patient return for a routine test and still get paid, so that’s what they schedule. They know the Medicare rules in order to maximize the Medicare payout.

If you didn’t have medicare who would pay your doctor? It would have to come out of your pocket, or you would have to buy insurance.

If all insurance including Medicare were to be limited to catastrophic coverage only, so that patients paid for the great majority of their own care, prices would drop dramatically.

I agree that we would be much better off if we got rid of Medicare parts B and D, we just cannot afford them.

 

[JimG]

If you didn’t have medicare who would pay your doctor? It would have to come out of your pocket, or you would have to buy insurance.

There is at least one primary care medical practice in town that is essentially fee for service–no insurance, not even Medicare or Medicaid. But instead of paying by the visit, patients pay a monthly retainer fee to the clinic for unlimited primary care service. Everybody seems to like it, and it includes many drugs and procedures. Patients still need at least catastrophic coverage for specialists. If my own doc would go to that kind of plan I would sign up, and also keep my (cheap) insurance coverage for other physicians and hospitals.

I agree that we would be much better off if we got rid of Medicare parts B and D, we just cannot afford them.

I didn’t sign up for Part D, figuring the premiums would most likely exceed the benefits.

 

[Ender]

The fact that a document can be misused is not a sufficient reason to discount the value of the document in general. Any document can be misused given enough creativity. Since you are not advising that we shouldn’t listen to the bishops, I assume your observation was meant only as a warning against misuse of an otherwise valuable message, and not meant to discount the message.

The problem with the document is not that it can be misused, whatever that means, but that it seems to invite an infinite number of interpretations. What does it mean to “misuse” it if there is no way to agree on what it means? How can anyone say this person’s explanation is valid, but that person’s rationale is invalid? The document doesn’t say anything specific. First it implies A, and then it implies not A. It is faulty precisely because it appears to justify conflicting positions.

Ender

 

[BellsMom]

There is at least one primary care medical practice in town that is essentially fee for service–no insurance, not even Medicare or Medicaid. But instead of paying by the visit, patients pay a monthly retainer fee to the clinic for unlimited primary care service. Everybody seems to like it, and it includes many drugs and procedures. Patients still need at least catastrophic coverage for specialists. If my own doc would go to that kind of plan I would sign up, and also keep my (cheap) insurance coverage for other physicians and hospitals.
I didn’t sign up for Part D, figuring the premiums would most likely exceed the benefits.

Sorry to go off topic but this is fascinating. Do you know anything about the cost of the monthly retainer? Does it depend on the health, age, gender, etc of the person seeking services?

 

[Ender]

Seeing how the criticism here of the USCCB’s new guide has preceded its release, there is no doubt that some will find no use in it.

The fact that the new guide is not out does not mean we know nothing about it. It appears to be the old guide with some new updates. The old guide is subject to the old criticisms.*The revisions approved by the bishops retain most of the document, and add to it. *(Wall Street Journal)

As criticism can be made from a known position of ignorance, I have no reason to believe that future criticism will ensue after the new guide is released will be any more informed. We should not allow Americanism to prevail over Catholicism, sitting as the judge instead of the pupil, and reading social justice and morality through our own partisan political filter.

It is relatively easy to understand the problem with the guide by running this simple test: can you find in it any position that disqualifies a person holding that position from receiving our vote? If the answer is no, then what guidance can it possibly be providing? I can as easily find support for Democrats and Democrat positions as for Republicans and Republican positions. How does the guide assist me in choosing which should receive my support? The answer is: it doesn’t.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The problem with the document is not that it can be misused, whatever that means, but that it seems to invite an infinite number of interpretations. What does it mean to “misuse” it if there is no way to agree on what it means? How can anyone say this person’s explanation is valid, but that person’s rationale is invalid? The document doesn’t say anything specific. First it implies A, and then it implies not A. It is faulty precisely because it appears to justify conflicting positions.

Ender

Oh, so your** are** recommending that we not listen to the bishops when they publish this document.

 

[JimG]

Sorry to go off topic but this is fascinating. Do you know anything about the cost of the monthly retainer? Does it depend on the health, age, gender, etc of the person seeking services?

The fees range from $10/mo for children to $100/mo for seniors age 65+. Of necessity I think they limit the number of patients because each patient has virtually unlimited access and time with the docs.

 

[gracepoole]

We need remember though that these items were called “non-negotiable” by Catholic Answers

I think it was actually Deal Hudson who first crafted the “How to Vote Catholic” guide and identified certain non-negotiables. This was then adopted by CA, et al, as you’ve noted. Am I wrong?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It is relatively easy to understand the problem with the guide by running this simple test: can you find in it any position that disqualifies a person holding that position from receiving our vote?

There are many instructional documents that don’t absolutely rule anything out, such as the instructions about how to observe Lent with prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. These instructions do not say exactly how much you need to pray, fast (beyond the legal minimum), or give to the needy. But they are nevertheless valuable as Catholic instruction. Requiring that Faithful Citizenship provide the kind of specificity that is not present in other Church documents is unreasonable, and not a good test of the value of the document as a guide.

 

[Ender]

Oh, so your** are** recommending that we not listen to the bishops when they publish this document.

No, I’m saying there is nothing there to listen to. Since no direction is given, none can be taken.

Ender

 

[Ender]

There are many instructional documents that don’t absolutely rule anything out, such as the instructions about how to observe Lent with prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. These instructions do not say exactly how much you need to pray, fast (beyond the legal minimum), or give to the needy. But they are nevertheless valuable as Catholic instruction. Requiring that Faithful Citizenship provide the kind of specificity that is not present in other Church documents is unreasonable, and not a good test of the value of the document as a guide.

This distorts the nature of what is actually in the document. If there was a guide on how to observe Lent that indicated we should pray - or not, that we should fast - or not, and that we should give to the needy - or not, you would have something comparable to the voter’s guide.

If you think the guide actually provides guidance then be specific: cite a paragraph and explain what it is telling us to do. Show an example of guidance, because if you can’t that will pretty much confirm that my complaint is accurate.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This distorts the nature of what is actually in the document. If there was a guide on how to observe Lent that indicated we should pray - or not, that we should fast - or not, and that we should give to the needy - or not, you would have something comparable to the voter’s guide.

If you think the guide actually provides guidance then be specific: cite a paragraph and explain what it is telling us to do. Show an example of guidance, because if you can’t that will pretty much confirm that my complaint is accurate.

Ender

You apparently have a very strict idea of what a “guide” must be. But taking the ordinary meaning of the word guide, I think most of the statements in that document qualify as guidance. For example, near the beginning we have:

Love compels us “to ‘go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation’ (Mk 16:15)” (Evangelii Gaudium, no. 181). “Here,” Pope Francis continues, “‘the creation’ refers to every aspect of human life; consequently, ‘the mission of proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ has a universal destination. Its mandate of charity encompasses all dimensions of existence, all individuals, all areas of community life, and all peoples. Nothing human can be alien to it’” (Evangelii Gaudium, no. 181). This “mandate” includes our engagement in political life.

This guides the reader to an understanding of the very basic principle that engagement in political life is in fact a mandate, not an optional activity to be disregarded lightly. This one guiding statement alone justifies calling the document a guide. But going further, we find things that are more specific:

*The Church’s teaching is clear that a good end does not justify an immoral means. As we all seek to advance the common good-by defending the inviolable sanctity of human life from the moment of conception until natural death, by promoting religious freedom, by defending marriage, by feeding the hungry and housing the homeless, by welcoming the immigrant and protecting the environment-it is important to recognize that not all possible courses of action are morally acceptable.
*

How can you not call this valuable guidance? People need to be reminded that the ends do not justify the means. I could go on, of course, but I wonder why you asked for examples of this document serving as a guide? Is it because you did not find the specific statement “It is a mortal sin to vote for someone who would keep abortion legal”?