US Constitution and Catholic Doctrine (subsidiarity)

[RobertLGarrett]

I would like to start a discussion about subsidiarity and how Catholic doctrine applies to the United States. I have my personal views about it and will give an overview. I hope others will join in the conversation.

Topics of conversation, in order of priority (according to me) for the thread:

1. Role of Federal Government vs. States, Counties and Cities (subsidiarity)
2. Proper role of the government in the economy - all levels.
3. Proper role of the government at all levels in social welfare issues - healthcare, personal income/retirement, etc.

I know this is a broad area, and I am hoping we get a lot of positive (name removed by moderator)ut. What I would desperately like to avoid is:

• European/American comparisons. I don’t care what Europe is doing good or bad. I am interested in what will work best in the US. Bashing the US or Europe is not interesting in the least.
• Devolving into a Democrats are death, Republicans are life discussion. For this thread, please keep the life issues out of this. Pretend that both parties are pro-life - no abortion, no contraception, no Gay marriage, no cloning, etc. They are all non-existent and the whole country recognizes them as sin.

Reference Links
US Constitution
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church
Centesimus annus
Acton Institute

 

[RobertLGarrett]

The reason I rank subsidiarity as the highest priority is that I believe it is important to point out that the structure of the US Constitution lends itself well to this concept.

If you do a search (Ctrl-F) for subsidiarity on the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, you will find a whole section on its meaning. Basically, to me it means we should follow the original intent of the founders of our country when they wrote the Constitution. The states should do almost everything not outlined by the Constitution (10th Amendment). This means that whatever healthcare solutions we come up with, welfare programs, etc. should not be done at the federal level.

In some states (e.g. California, New York, etc.) they should carry those items even lower on the food chain to the county level. And, of course, where it makes sense, things should be moved to the city level. The closer to the individual, the better it is.

Also, some things shouldn’t be the territory of the state at all. We can all debate those items. I’m more interested right now in the biggies.

 

[josephdavid]

The reason I rank subsidiarity as the highest priority is that I believe it is important to point out that the structure of the US Constitution lends itself well to this concept.

If you do a search (Ctrl-F) for subsidiarity on the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, you will find a whole section on its meaning. Basically, to me it means we should follow the original intent of the founders of our country when they wrote the Constitution. The states should do almost everything not outlined by the Constitution (10th Amendment). This means that whatever healthcare solutions we come up with, welfare programs, etc. should not be done at the federal level.

In some states (e.g. California, New York, etc.) they should carry those items even lower on the food chain to the county level. And, of course, where it makes sense, things should be moved to the city level. The closer to the individual, the better it is.

Also, some things shouldn’t be the territory of the state at all. We can all debate those items. I’m more interested right now in the biggies.

But what if those states are not doing so like such the states you mentioned.

Also is it not with in the Constitution that they can raises funds through taxation and spend as deemed necessary?

 

[RobertLGarrett]

But what if those states are not doing so like such the states you mentioned.

Well, it depends on what you are talking about. For example, some states may decide to have a 100% state run healthcare system; others may decide to have a 100% private system. Both would be licit, and I see no problem with that. I feel the same about education, welfare, etc. Why would you have a problem with another stated voting to do something different?

josephdavid:

Also is it not with in the Constitution that they can raises funds through taxation and spend as deemed necessary?

Yes. We are discussing what is necessary and right. I think it is contrary to Church teaching of subsidiarity for the federal government to do as much as it is currently doing.

 

[josephdavid]

The reason I rank subsidiarity as the highest priority is that I believe it is important to point out that the structure of the US Constitution lends itself well to this concept.

If you do a search (Ctrl-F) for subsidiarity on the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, you will find a whole section on its meaning. Basically, to me it means we should follow the original intent of the founders of our country when they wrote the Constitution. The states should do almost everything not outlined by the Constitution (10th Amendment). This means that whatever healthcare solutions we come up with, welfare programs, etc. should not be done at the federal level.

In some states (e.g. California, New York, etc.) they should carry those items even lower on the food chain to the county level. And, of course, where it makes sense, things should be moved to the city level. The closer to the individual, the better it is.

Also, some things shouldn’t be the territory of the state at all. We can all debate those items. I’m more interested right now in the biggies.

From: II. THE PRINCIPLE OF THE COMMON GOOD

Meaning and primary implications

1. The principle of the common good, to which every aspect of social life must be related if it is to attain its fullest meaning, stems from the dignity, unity and equality of all people. According to its primary and broadly accepted sense, the common good indicates “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfilment more fully and more easily”.[346]

The common good does not consist in the simple sum of the particular goods of each subject of a social entity. Belonging to everyone and to each person, it is and remains “common”, because it is indivisible and because only together is it possible to attain it, increase it and safeguard its effectiveness, with regard also to the future. Just as the moral actions of an individual are accomplished in doing what is good, so too the actions of a society attain their full stature when they bring about the common good. The common good, in fact, can be understood as the social and community dimension of the moral good.

1. The responsibility for attaining the common good, besides falling to individual persons, belongs also to the State, since the common good is the reason that the political authority exists[355]. The State, in fact, must guarantee the coherency, unity and organization of the civil society of which it is an expression[356], in order that the common good may be attained with the contribution of every citizen. The individual person, the family or intermediate groups are not able to achieve their full development by themselves for living a truly human life. Hence the necessity of political institutions, the purpose of which is to make available to persons the necessary material, cultural, moral and spiritual goods. The goal of life in society is in fact the historically attainable common good[357].
2. To ensure the common good, the government of each country has the specific duty to harmonize the different sectoral interests with the requirements of justice[358]. The proper reconciling of the particular goods of groups and those of individuals is, in fact, one of the most delicate tasks of public authority. Moreover, it must not be forgotten that in the democratic State, where decisions are usually made by the majority of representatives elected by the people, those responsible for government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community, including the minority.
3. The common good of society is not an end in itself; it has value only in reference to attaining the ultimate ends of the person and the universal common good of the whole of creation. God is the ultimate end of his creatures and for no reason may the common good be deprived of its transcendent dimension, which moves beyond the historical dimension while at the same time fulfilling it[359]. This perspective reaches its fullness by virtue of faith in Jesus’ Passover, which sheds clear light on the attainment of humanity’s true common good. Our history — the personal and collective effort to elevate the human condition — begins and ends in Jesus: thanks to him, by means of him and in light of him every reality, including human society, can be brought to its Supreme Good, to its fulfilment. A purely historical and materialistic vision would end up transforming the common good into a simple socio-economic well-being, without any transcendental goal, that is, without its most intimate reason for existing.

 

[josephdavid]

From: V. THE “NEW THINGS”
IN THE ECONOMIC SECTOR
In analyzing the present context, besides identifying the opportunities now opening up in the era of the global economy, one also comes to see the risks connected with the new dimensions of commercial and financial relations. In fact, there are indications aplenty that point to a trend of increasing inequalities, both between advanced countries and developing countries, and within industrialized countries. The growing economic wealth made possible by the processes described above is accompanied by an increase in relative poverty.

1. Looking after the common good means making use of the new opportunities for the redistribution of wealth among the different areas of the planet, to the benefit of the underprivileged that until now have been excluded or cast to the sidelines of social and economic progress.[750] “The challenge, in short, is to ensure a globalization in solidarity, a globalization without marginalization”.[751] This technological progress itself risks being unfairly distributed among countries. In fact, technological innovations can penetrate and spread within a specific community only if the potential beneficiaries have a minimum level of knowledge and financial resources. It is evident that, because of the great disparities between countries regarding access to technical and scientific knowledge and to the most recent products of technology, the process of globalization ends up increasing rather than decreasing the inequalities between countries in terms of economic and social development. Given the nature of the current dynamics, the free circulation of capital is not of itself sufficient to close the gap between developing countries and the more advanced countries.

From: IV. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION FOR DEVELOPMENT
447. The Church’s social doctrine encourages forms of cooperation that are capable of facilitating access to the international market on the part of countries suffering from poverty and underdevelopment. “Even in recent years it was thought that the poorest countries would develop by isolating themselves from the world market and by depending only on their own resources. Recent experience has shown that countries which did this have suffered stagnation and recession, while the countries which experienced development were those which succeeded in taking part in the general interrelated economic activities at the international level. It seems therefore that the chief problem is that of gaining fair access to the international market, based not on the unilateral principle of the exploitation of the natural resources of these countries but on the proper use of human resources”.[930] Among the causes that greatly contribute to underdevelopment and poverty, in addition to the impossibility of acceding to the international market,[931] mention must be made of illiteracy, lack of food security, the absence of structures and services, inadequate measures for guaranteeing basic health care, the lack of safe drinking water and sanitation, corruption, instability of institutions and of political life itself. There is a connection between poverty and, in many countries, the lack of liberty, possibilities for economic initiative and a national administration capable of setting up an adequate system of education and information.

 

[josephdavid]

Yes. We are discussing what is necessary and right. I think it is contrary to Church teaching of subsidiarity for the federal government to do as much as it is currently doing.

1. Tax revenues and public spending take on crucial economic importance for every civil and political community. The goal to be sought is public financing that is itself capable of becoming an instrument of development and solidarity. Just, efficient and effective public financing will have very positive effects on the economy, because it will encourage employment growth and sustain business and non-profit activities and help to increase the credibility of the State as the guarantor of systems of social insurance and protection that are designed above all to protect the weakest members of society.

Public spending is directed to the common good when certain fundamental principles are observed: the payment of taxes [739] as part of the duty of solidarity; a reasonable and fair application of taxes;[740] precision and integrity in administering and distributing public resources.[741] In the redistribution of resources, public spending must observe the principles of solidarity, equality and making use of talents. It must also pay greater attention to families, designating an adequate amount of resources for this purpose.[742]

1. Jesus refuses the oppressive and despotic power wielded by the rulers of the nations (cf. Mk 10:42) and rejects their pretension in having themselves called benefactors (cf. Lk 22:25), but he does not directly oppose the authorities of his time. In his pronouncement on the paying of taxes to Caesar (cf. Mk 12:13-17; Mt 22:15-22; Lk 20:20-26), he affirms that we must give to God what is God’s, implicitly condemning every attempt at making temporal power divine or absolute: God alone can demand everything from man. At the same time, temporal power has the right to its due: Jesus does not consider it unjust to pay taxes to Caesar.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

1. Tax revenues and public spending take on crucial economic importance for every civil and political community. The goal to be sought is public financing that is itself capable of becoming an instrument of development and solidarity. Just, efficient and effective public financing will have very positive effects on the economy, because it will encourage employment growth and sustain business and non-profit activities and help to increase the credibility of the State as the guarantor of systems of social insurance and protection that are designed above all to protect the weakest members of society.

Public spending is directed to the common good when certain fundamental principles are observed: the payment of taxes [739] as part of the duty of solidarity; a reasonable and fair application of taxes;[740] precision and integrity in administering and distributing public resources.[741] In the redistribution of resources, public spending must observe the principles of solidarity, equality and making use of talents. It must also pay greater attention to families, designating an adequate amount of resources for this purpose.[742]

1. Jesus refuses the oppressive and despotic power wielded by the rulers of the nations (cf. Mk 10:42) and rejects their pretension in having themselves called benefactors (cf. Lk 22:25), but he does not directly oppose the authorities of his time. In his pronouncement on the paying of taxes to Caesar (cf. Mk 12:13-17; Mt 22:15-22; Lk 20:20-26), he affirms that we must give to God what is God’s, implicitly condemning every attempt at making temporal power divine or absolute: God alone can demand everything from man. At the same time, temporal power has the right to its due: Jesus does not consider it unjust to pay taxes to Caesar.

If your point is “taxes are licit,” then you are correct. I haven’t argued against taxes. I don’t see anything in there that is contrary to her teaching on subsidiarity.

Oh…I see…you are just posting a bunch of quotes with no points whatsoever attached to them.

 

[josephdavid]

If your point is “taxes are licit,” then you are correct. I haven’t argued against taxes. I don’t see anything in there that is contrary to her teaching on subsidiarity.

Oh…I see…you are just posting a bunch of quotes with no points whatsoever attached to them.

I figured you would say that. Which means you did not read the texts of the posts completely.

I let the rest of the group play. Good luck to you.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

I figured you would say that. Which means you did not read the texts of the posts completely.

I let the rest of the group play. Good luck to you.

You haven’t made a point…why run away? If you have a point based on those texts, then make it. I can post a couple of quotes without comment too…it accomplishes nothing. :banghead:

 

[josephdavid]

You haven’t made a point…why run away? If you have a point based on those texts, then make it. I can post a couple of quotes without comment too…it accomplishes nothing. :banghead:

Basically I pointed out that with in the CCC the government and it’s people have the duty to look out for the common good for all people, especially the poor and most vulnerable. Not jut favoring the individual or one group of people.

Furthermore I pointed out in my posts that with in the CCC the government has a responsibility to make sure there is economic and social justice. Make sure it’s people are being take care of properly.

Thank you for asking me to stay. But you must agree I do talk to much haha. Just as my clients and my collegues! haha

So another reason I best let others play.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

Basically I pointed out that with in the CCC the government and it’s people have the duty to look out for the common good for all people, especially the poor and most vulnerable. Not jut favoring the individual or one group of people.

Well, actually, you didn’t point anything out - you copy/pasted from the Catechism. In order to make a point, you have to actually comment on your quotes. Now, in regards to your first comment above, I completely agree that is the role of government.

josephdavid:

Furthermore I pointed out in my posts that with in the CCC the government has a responsibility to make sure there is economic and social justice. Make sure it’s people are being take care of properly.

Two things. Firstly, as the Catechism states, the government is not “solely” responsible for those things. Secondly, the question is how? Please see the following from Centesimus annus:
Centesimus annus:

In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called “Welfare State”. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”.** Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity **with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.100

By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility,** the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need. **It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care.

This seems contrary to your conclusion. Whom do you think has it right John Paul II or josephdavid?

josephdavid:

Thank you for asking me to stay. But you must agree I do talk to much haha. Just as my clients and my collegues! haha

So another reason I best let others play.

Well, please stay if you have anything to add - that is the point of discussion. However, I do look forward to others joining in.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I do not understand your post. The catholic church(RCC) and the US Constitution are not at odds. The subsidiary affect needs reworked which requires Constitution revision (good luck with that). For example drivers license should be federal, and the post office should go away. However the big issues are not issues – we are free to worship and our Priest have legal privilege. Issues as universal health care are not issues at all in regard to the RCC. Today it is welfare and private insurance combination tomorrow it may be different, so what?

 

[josephdavid]

Two things. Firstly, as the Catechism states, the government is not “solely” responsible for those things.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

Never said it was but it has part of the responsibility. This is America. It will take citizen, business and government to work together for the common good of all it’s citizens. When one fails there is the other.

I agree with him. The State shoud not be the sole bearer. It should be all society working together but he did not say the government has no responsibility or should take any responsibility of it’s citizesn.

Well, then you obviously don’t understand what subsidiarity and the topic of this thread is all about. I never said that government has no responsibility. What I have said is that responsibilities should be closer to the individual.

For example, I offered up the example of two states with two different methods for handling healthcare. You didn’t even bother to respond. There is nothing in Catholic doctrine that says the federal government has to be the main provider/decision maker. The principle of subsidiarity seems to imply it is not.

josephdavid:

I must ask what is wrong with comparing what we have now with other countries? Nothing wrong with taking ideas from others and piecing them together to make something better. You have to agree what we have now is not working for all Americans and is causing a serious financial hemorrage.

The problem is I’ve been around too long and in too many threads with European vs American posturing and arguments. They are tiresome and unproductive.

josephdavid:

Thank you for your charity. But now i must get ready for tomorrow. I have a busy two weeks being that I have been on holiday and in two weeks I have a long trip to Germany for work.
Sigh… these two weeks gone by too quck.

Okay. If you change your mind, feel free to chime in.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I am not a theologian or an economist. I am not sure I can adequately express what I feel based on what I do know and instinctively.

I see no contradiction between the Constitution and subsidiarity. The Constitution seems, generally, to have been written by men who supported. I think, however, that the Constitution has, in many ways, been “construed” by those with agendas in ways that depart significantly from its original intent.

But in general, the Jeffersonian notion of a proper democracy is not far from the concepts of the social encyclicals.

In considering the Church’s position on economic matters, I think we often tend to depart from the Church’s first principles as they relate to living in the material world. A person could write a book exploring them, and doubtless some have, but I would not be the person to do it.

So, I will “start in the middle”, so to speak. It has long seemed to me that there is a gulf between the Social Encyclicals and the urgings of certain churchmen, particularly the “Church bureaucracies” like the USCCB, that tend to get politicized in secular ways.

Subsidiary, first and foremost, concentrates on the economies of the individual and the family. If all families were fully able to provide everything for themselves, subsidiary would demand that governments at all levels do nothing at all. The encyclicals, beginning with Rerum Novarum, did acknowledge that there are people who simply cannot provide for themselves. Catholic doctrine requires that people in a society provide for such people, but it should be done at the most proximate level. If the family cannot provide for itself, then the religious communities are the next most proximate level, followed by secular communities on a local level, state level, federal, in an ascending order based on capability.

To that end, the social encyclicals mightily encourage systems which maximize the individual and family acquisition of productive assets; assets being the “reserve” for families, as well as “tools” by which the family members’ time might best allow for family relationships and development spiritually.

One of the great cautions which are repeated in the social encyclicals, is that against essentially “reversing” subsidiarity by such means as socialism or corporatism. It was felt by the Popes that dependency on those bodies in a material way encourages excessive influence by those bodies on the individual and on families.

It is my personal belief that in the U.S. we have substantially departed from those principles. First of all, individuals and families are deprived of what I understand as about 40% of its productive capacities by taxation, when federal, state and local taxes are all considered. That is virtual serfdom, in my judgment. That is a lot of an individual’s life that must be dedicated to serving government.

Furthermore, it discourages the acquisition of productive assets. When Rerum Novarum was written, “productive assets” were thought of primarily in terms of land…land to farm. Now, as Pope John Paul II acknowledged, it must largely take other forms. Yet, he reconfirmed the principle itself.

We must ask ourselves whether the level of taxation we experience really is necessary for the support of those who cannot help themselves. I have difficulty believing that it does. Most social programs are not designed for those who are unable to help themselves. Most are designed as “middle class welfare”, in the sense that people who can work and have prospects for economic improvement are the recipients of most of the state’s largesse. Meanwhile, in this country, the neediest of all; the disabled needy (SSI) receive less than $600/month. When he reaches 65, every billionaire will be entitled to receive the maximum possile social security benefit without needing a dime of it. On the other hand, the neediest get virtually nothing.
In my opinion, that whole setup is profoundly wrong. It is all the more wrong when it is based on the total falsehood that people “paid it in”; that Social Security is some kind of “savings account”. Benefits bear some relationship to contributions, but the reality is that there is no “fund”. It’s just a tax on present wage earners to pay prior or current wage earners. Such benefits should be need based, but are not.

I like this thread and hope to return to it, but I must do other things for now.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

Hi Ridgerunner,

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I think every social good needs to be examined from the ground (family) up to assess the proper place for it to be handled. Clearly, there is a preference for non-governmental associations (e.g. unions, charities) because they are closer to the individual than a government entity.

Here are a few of my attempts to “think outside the box:”

Minimum wage - I’m not sure how or if the feds or states should be involved. I do believe there should be a minimum of some sort. Whatever the minimum dollar amount is should be determined at the county level. To impose a federal minimum is nonsensical due to the variance across the country. Even at the state level this is true. In my own state, a “living wage” in Seattle is not going to be the same as in Yakima or Wenatchee.

Healthcare - I think every state should come up with their own way of handling this. I wouldn’t be opposed to some Federal requirement that everyone have coverage, but I think a national program would be a terrible idea. Within my own state, what I would favor is creating some sort of state clinic for preventative care and therapy…maybe even prescriptions, paid for through a modest premium imposed equally on every citizen and copays. Catastrophic care and elective procedures would be handled through private insurance companies. Emergency treatment wouldn’t be refused to anyone (status quo) unless someone comes in with a non-emergency.

Social Security - Personally, I think it needs to be phased out. It is poorly funded and was set up poorly from the beginning. As you said, it is really a welfare program. I think what might make sense is a forced 10% retirement fund that comes out of your paycheck and goes into a 401k-type account that you can manage. You wouldn’t be able to draw from it until a set retirement age. As far as the age, we probably need to link it to a life expectancy number. That way, you can retire early on other savings/investments if you want, but the back-up is still there when you hit that age. Also, if someone dies before the set age, their heirs would receive it - either as a cash outlay or rolled over into their retirement account(s).

Just some ideas…

 

[Ridgerunner]

Social Security - Personally, I think it needs to be phased out. It is poorly funded and was set up poorly from the beginning. As you said, it is really a welfare program. I think what might make sense is a forced 10% retirement fund that comes out of your paycheck and goes into a 401k-type account that you can manage. You wouldn’t be able to draw from it until a set retirement age. As far as the age, we probably need to link it to a life expectancy number. That way, you can retire early on other savings/investments if you want, but the back-up is still there when you hit that age. Also, if someone dies before the set age, their heirs would receive it - either as a cash outlay or rolled over into their retirement account(s).

Just some ideas…

It never got off the ground, really, but the Bush plan for partial privatization of social security would have been more in line with the Social Encyclicals than is the present system, which is welfare disguised as a “savings plan”, with the government as your heir, and no means testing.

I personally have no problem with government welfare for those who really need it, but when the maximum SS benefit can be received by billionaires and those with insufficient “quarters” due to disability (or homemaking) get less than $600, I think that’s very wrong.

Incredibly, the USCCB came out in opposition to the “partial privatization” plan, even though it was voluntary, as conceived.
I truly did wonder whether the bishops had ever read the Social Encyclicals or, having read them, ignored them.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Healthcare - I think every state should come up with their own way of handling this. I wouldn’t be opposed to some Federal requirement that everyone have coverage, but I think a national program would be a terrible idea. Within my own state, what I would favor is creating some sort of state clinic for preventative care and therapy…maybe even prescriptions, paid for through a modest premium imposed equally on every citizen and copays. Catastrophic care and elective procedures would be handled through private insurance companies. Emergency treatment wouldn’t be refused to anyone (status quo) unless someone comes in with a non-emergency.

Among other notions that will be ignored, it seems to me real reform of the healthcare system needs to be the first priority; before universal healthcare. Pricing is all askew, distorted by the Medicare insistence on a “discount” that really isn’t a discount, and Medicare’s encouragement of “gold-plating” by allowing providers to build their costs into the Medicare allowance. “Costs”, of course, are a relative thing; relative to how much you spend.

Also, it seems to me the whole organizational structure of medicine is off kilter. The selection of physicians is almost clinically insane. There are not enough places in medical schools. The primary requirements for admission are, at the core, math skills that are never used in actual practice, and an incredible amount of money. Even NP schools are very limited. There just plain are not enough providers, and those who are there almost all belong to giant organizations, so that primary care physicians are in large part supporting gigantic superstructures.

It’s interesting to see Amish in waiting rooms. They don’t have insurance at all. Yet they are pretty healthy people, by and large. Still, they do go to the doctor. It’s interesting to watch them when it comes time to pay. They will bargain some and pay in greenbacks. Now, if those people can afford to contribute 100% of their own medical costs, why do we “English” (as they call us) insist that someone else pay our way no matter what our resources are? I could afford a larger deductible than I have, but I can’t get one because my state will not allow a company to sell me a higher deductible policy. Nor will it allow a company to sell me a policy that does not cover AIDS, Erectile Dysfunction and a number of other things that I really don’t want coverage for.

Amish don’t accept Social Security, and are exempt from paying those taxes. They take care of their own, and it works. That’s subsidiarity in a big way. Now, I’m not saying we should all live like the Amish, but it does seem to me we have departed more than we really had to, from what was once the universal model, and which the Amish simply continued into the 21st Century.

 

[rwoehmke]

While this discussion is interesting and many valid points have been made, I cannot help but consider the role of the federal government required to do away with slavery and its role in bringing civil rights to those who were treated separate but “equal.” That type of situation is always a problem when every thing is left to be accomplished at the lowest possible level. Subsidiarity is good in theory, but often lacks justice in practice. It is human nature that when I have “got mine” through my own efforts that I do not want to share it with others. It is that multiplied many fold that becomes the problem with the Church’s notion of subsidiarity.