Use of Taxes

[Seeker100]

A government of a nation collects taxes from the people and then spends it in various ways. Due to the corrupt nature of this world some of the taxes are used to fund things which can be considered to be very immoral. It is still our moral duty however to pay our taxes to support the government’s work as this work supports the society.

Universal health care must be viewed in the same way. It should be supported even if some of the taxes going towards it are going to immoral things.

Please support Obama in providing health care to the poor.

Seeker100

 

[ConservativeOne]

A government of a nation collects taxes from the people and then spends it in various ways. Due to the corrupt nature of this world some of the taxes are used to fund things which can be considered to be very immoral. It is still our moral duty however to pay our taxes to support the government’s work as this work supports the society.

Universal health care must be viewed in the same way. It should be supported even if some of the taxes going towards it are going to immoral things.

Please support Obama in providing health care to the poor.

Seeker100

I understand your concern for the poor - but I’m sorry. I don’t agree. If we bend - using the reasoning in your second-to-last paragraph - then, what is the definition of the ‘Church Militant’? Are you aware of what “immoral things” will be done? I’m guessing none of us knows even the half of it. I think that the politicians or the media are promoting the general term “health care to the poor” rather than necessary health care.

IF - and it’s a big IF - Obama or any politician were concerned about the “poor” getting health care, it would be for accidents, necessary surgeries, etc. - the necessities of health not convenience. I’ve been without health care insurance for YEARS - with little prospects of it - and I pay out of pocket. If I need surgery, I’m in big trouble. And STILL I wouldn’t trust any of the current “health plans” being promoted. They come with dangerous strings attached - and my guess is our taxes will still pay for it - there won’t be any free rides from the government.

Politicians who have the money and could well afford it on their own - VOTED IN THEIR OWN health plans years ago - not just for themselves but for their families, while we watched. Why didn’t they vote FIRST on behalf of the poor if their interest was sincere? Because they either think for themselves first - or DON’T CARE about their constituents. If they did, the situation wouldn’t be where it is already. This is not sour grapes - this is fact. Am I the only one who feels this way?

 

[Brendan]

Universal health care must be viewed in the same way. It should be supported even if some of the taxes going towards it are going to immoral things.

No, the Bishops, and Catholic moral teaching, disagree with you.

There is no such thing as “Universal Health Care” that would involve abortion. Abortion, by it’s very defintion, excludes the unborn from health care and thus is not Universal.

And the funding of abortion, either directly or indirectly, also invalidates the very concept of “Health Care”, a program that provides such funding cannot be considered “Health Care”, .Being torn apart by a suction devices, or acid burned to death by saline cannot, by any sane defintion, be called ‘health care’

So what is currently on the table, with no explicit exclusion of abortion, cannot be considered either “Universal” or “Health Care” and thus we should not support it.

 

[vz71]

While one can attempt to put together this argument using the fact that Jesus himself stated that we should render under Caesar, it simply does not work.

While we have little say in what our taxes support, We do have a say.

The immorality in the Obamacare push is something that must be opposed.

 

[perfectpeach]

The problem with universal healthcare is that it will NOT fix the rising costs of healthcare. If we spent 1.4 Trillion dollars next year on healthcare, that number will keep going up and up and eventually the tax burden will have to be carried by more and more people meaning those with lower incomes.

The income tax was created in 1913 (I believe) At first, only the 5% wealthiest (hmm, does that percentage ring a bell?) paid income taxes because of all the government spending, more and more families are forced to pay taxes.

Instead of giving “free” healthcare to everyone, we need to examine why healthcare costs are rising steeply. Keep in mind that technology always lowers the cost of something… (think big screen tv) However, in the healthcare industry prices are only going up and that is because the government has placed too many regulations and has interefered with the free market.

We have been on government run healthcare for the past forty years. If you are not sure what I mean, just google “managed care.” This was government implemented and mandated and has contributed to the rising costs of healthcare… It isn’t the ONLY contributor. There are others worthy of looking at and reforming.

Healthcare does not need to be paid for by the top 5% wealthiest families. (History proves this number WILL change). The rising costs of healthcare will only cause our system to collapse and then the poor will be WORSE off than they are.

We need to reform the broken system. Get the government OUT of healthcare, allow the free market to work and prices will steadly fall. Once they have fallen back to a normal rate, people will start paying out of pocket for minor things and have insurance for MAJOR catastrophes like a heart attack or a broken leg. It will be cheaper to pay out of pocket for seeing the doctor for your annual exam than it would be to pay a monthly premium, deductible and a co-pay.

We need to go back to what insurance was originally intended for.

I would rather not have an income tax and use my money for charities I deem reasonable… and those do NOT include planned parenthood or secular education systems.

 

[Seeker100]

No, the Bishops, and Catholic moral teaching, disagree with you.

There is no such thing as “Universal Health Care” that would involve abortion. Abortion, by it’s very defintion, excludes the unborn from health care and thus is not Universal.

And the funding of abortion, either directly or indirectly, also invalidates the very concept of “Health Care”, a program that provides such funding cannot be considered “Health Care”, .Being torn apart by a suction devices, or acid burned to death by saline cannot, by any sane defintion, be called ‘health care’

So what is currently on the table, with no explicit exclusion of abortion, cannot be considered either “Universal” or “Health Care” and thus we should not support it.

I understand totally your concerns and others who think like you.
Would it not be better however, to fight the abortion fight on another battle field? Since “universal” health care does bring some big benefits for society why not promote these benefits but fight the legality of abortions in another forum. If abortions are made illigal than universal heath care will not cover it and your problem is solved. Support Obama in getting in the health care plan but fight the legality of abortions. Would this not be a better way instead of denying health care to many people who cannot afford it?
Why fight abortions in a plan that can help so many? Fight abortions as a separate issue than this plan.

Seeker100

 

[Corki]

I understand totally your concerns and others who think like you.
Would it not be better however, to fight the abortion fight on another battle field? Since “universal” health care does bring some big benefits for society why not promote these benefits but fight the legality of abortions in another forum. If abortions are made illigal than universal heath care will not cover it and your problem is solved. Support Obama in getting in the health care plan but fight the legality of abortions. Would this not be a better way instead of denying health care to many people who cannot afford it?
Why fight abortions in a plan that can help so many? Fight abortions as a separate issue than this plan.

Seeker100

Abortion must be opposed on ALL possible fronts. Government funding of aboriton is a huge attack on the sanctity of life and it is a nation-wide attack. Working on the legality of abortion is important but it is slow and state-by-state. We must do both and then some.

But the big fallacy being advanced is that the Obama health care plan would be “just fine” if it wasn’t for the abortion funding. That’s not true. The abortion provisions are probablly the most heinous but there are so many things in the plan that would be bad for workers, bad for seniors, bad for the poor, and bad for the economy. Now that it looks like it isn’t going to be a “slam dunk,” more and more economists and healthcare experts are coming out to oppose this plan.

We need to change many things about how we provide healthcare in this country but this plan is the wrong way to do it.

So, yes, I support health care for the poor but I don’t support Obama and his health care plan.

 

[JimG]

I understand totally your concerns and others who think like you.
Would it not be better however, to fight the abortion fight on another battle field? Since “universal” health care does bring some big benefits for society why not promote these benefits but fight the legality of abortions in another forum. If abortions are made illigal than universal heath care will not cover it and your problem is solved. Support Obama in getting in the health care plan but fight the legality of abortions. Would this not be a better way instead of denying health care to many people who cannot afford it?
Why fight abortions in a plan that can help so many? Fight abortions as a separate issue than this plan.

Seeker100

Turn the argument around. If the inclusion of abortion threatens to sink a health care bill, simply exclude abortion by specific legislative language in the bill itself.

Abortion proponents can push abortion on other fronts. It need not and should not be included in a healthcare bill.

The U.S. bishops have said that the inclusion of abortion makes the bill unacceptable.

 

[Seeker100]

Turn the argument around. If the inclusion of abortion threatens to sink a health care bill, simply exclude abortion by specific legislative language in the bill itself.

Abortion proponents can push abortion on other fronts. It need not and should not be included in a healthcare bill.

The U.S. bishops have said that the inclusion of abortion makes the bill unacceptable.

What you say is very very very good. Very very good indeed. It is a good point.

All I can say is it appears the pro-choice collectively have the upper hand at this moment so the plan is being implimented along their terms. The best outcome would be to go with the health care plan but fight abortion on other fronts.

Llikewise if the situation was reversed and it was going forward with abortions banned the pro choice people should support the universal health care but fight their battles on other fronts.

Either way universal health care is a must for a nation.

Seeker100

 

[Seeker100]

Turn the argument around. If the inclusion of abortion threatens to sink a health care bill, simply exclude abortion by specific legislative language in the bill itself.

Abortion proponents can push abortion on other fronts. It need not and should not be included in a healthcare bill.

The U.S. bishops have said that the inclusion of abortion makes the bill unacceptable.

Again what you say is very very good. Perhaps abortion should be taken out to save the ship however what if then the pro-choice people gang up and work to sink the ship? The plan would just be a vulnerable as it is now. Either way health care has a rough go by people focusing on another agenda.

Seeker100

 

[Brendan]

I understand totally your concerns and others who think like you.
Would it not be better however, to fight the abortion fight on another battle field? Since “universal” health care does bring some big benefits for society why not promote these benefits but fight the legality of abortions in another forum. If abortions are made illigal than universal heath care will not cover it and your problem is solved. Support Obama in getting in the health care plan but fight the legality of abortions. Would this not be a better way instead of denying health care to many people who cannot afford it?
Why fight abortions in a plan that can help so many? Fight abortions as a separate issue than this plan.

Seeker100

Seeker,

Abortion is such a henious crime that it needs to be fought on EVERY battlefield.

There should be no support for anything that would widen it’s use.

If abortions are made illegal, then yes, I will happily support an initiative to expand health care. But the illegality of abortion has to be accomplished first, because, as I noted above, if it involves abortion it is not health care.

And if Pres. Obama is so interested in this passing, why not propose a simple ammendment prohibiting any abortion or Embryonic Stem Cell coverage in any policies subsidized by tax dollars.

He could gain the support of the US bishops in one fell swoop.

 

[1ke]

You are correct that we render our tax money even if those taxes are used in immoral ways. Christ himself said “render unto Caesar.”

In that day, Caesar was absolute power. He made the laws. He spent the money. People had little chance of influencing the way in which their funds were spent. (Aside from some Roman aristocray, who did have influence but often used it to enrich themselves… sounds familiar).

Our situation is much different. We DO have influence (although, our government acts more like Caesar each day and lobbist/congressmen more like the Roman aristocracy).

We have the ability to vote people in/out of office. We have the ability to assemble and use free speech to voice opposition to immoral uses of tax monies. We have our own free will to work for the GOOD.

It is our **obligation **to stand up and lobby/influence/assemble/petition for **just **laws and **just **use of the monies we pay through taxes.

Therefore your argument to just let this go into health care for the “greater good” is misplaced. We must fight evil wherever we encounter it.

If we lose, *then *we pay the taxes as a good citizen does.

But, we don’t sit quietly while there is an opportunity to *prevent *our tax money from being spent on things that are immoral and unjust-- in the case of abortion, the murder of children. And if we lose, we continue to fight to change the laws that are immoral and unjust.

 

[Seeker100]

You are correct that we render our tax money even if those taxes are used in immoral ways. Christ himself said “render unto Caesar.”

In that day, Caesar was absolute power. He made the laws. He spent the money. People had little chance of influencing the way in which their funds were spent. (Aside from some Roman aristocray, who did have influence but often used it to enrich themselves… sounds familiar).

Our situation is much different. We DO have influence (although, our government acts more like Caesar each day and lobbist/congressmen more like the Roman aristocracy).

We have the ability to vote people in/out of office. We have the ability to assemble and use free speech to voice opposition to immoral uses of tax monies. We have our own free will to work for the GOOD.

It is our **obligation **to stand up and lobby/influence/assemble/petition for **just **laws and **just **use of the monies we pay through taxes.

Therefore your argument to just let this go into health care for the “greater good” is misplaced. We must fight evil wherever we encounter it.

If we lose, *then *we pay the taxes as a good citizen does.

But, we don’t sit quietly while there is an opportunity to *prevent *our tax money from being spent on things that are immoral and unjust-- in the case of abortion, the murder of children. And if we lose, we continue to fight to change the laws that are immoral and unjust.

But if you “win” and universal health care is lost is that also not a great evil. Human beings not being able to be treated with top medical care. Is this not a great evil. All money belongs to God. Is not meant by God that everyone receive proper medical treatment.

I totally understand your opposition to abortion but is it not evil to prevent people from getting the medical treatment they need in order to fight this abortion issue. I think that preventing people from getting proper medical treatment is a terrible terrible evil and that is just what the bishops and people who are supporting htem are doing. (although perhaps with good intentions of stopping abortions)

I think it is evil to hold people who need medical treatment but can’t afford it hostage in order to push anti abortion. This is the WRONG PLACE. Fight abortion in the legal area! Not at the expense of the poor!!!

 

[JimG]

I agree with the bishops that the inclusion of abortion makes the healthcare bill simply unacceptable.

However, that’s not the only problem with the bill. It is being opposed on more grounds than the inclusion of abortion, and by more people than just those who are pro-life.

Another big factor is cost. There are a certain number of uninsured in this country. They must be provided for. That can be accomplished without an overhaul of the entire healthcare system.

Another factor related to cost is the unavailability of high deductible policies, the return of power to the medical consumer (see a recent article in Atlantic Monthly magazine about that), which the current proposals do not even address. (see this thread.)

Finally, all this is being proposed at a time when the nation is trying to recover from economic crisis of unprecedented proportions. Further expansion of entitlement programs in the magnitude being projected threatens national bankruptcy.

My suggestions would be to first, take abortion off the table, second, look at more modest proposals which return power to the consumer.

 

[Corki]

But if you “win” and universal health care is lost is that also not a great evil. Human beings not being able to be treated with top medical care. Is this not a great evil. All money belongs to God. Is not meant by God that everyone receive proper medical treatment.

I totally understand your opposition to abortion but is it not evil to prevent people from getting the medical treatment they need in order to fight this abortion issue. I think that preventing people from getting proper medical treatment is a terrible terrible evil and that is just what the bishops and people who are supporting htem are doing. (although perhaps with good intentions of stopping abortions)

I think it is evil to hold people who need medical treatment but can’t afford it hostage in order to push anti abortion. This is the WRONG PLACE. Fight abortion in the legal area! Not at the expense of the poor!!!

The proposed healthcare plan is not the only possible solution. Many people pushing this plan seem to act as if this is the one and only way to reform healthcare. It isn’t. There are many good ideas being proposed. “Winning” in this case, isn’t a great evil. It will force the lawmakers, and maybe even the President, to look for a solution that is good for everyone. The current plan is a short term fix that is not sustainable either in terms of money or medical resources.

We want to fight for healthcare for the poor but not at the expense of lost innocent lives and a bankrupt economy. What we cannot afford is a plan that pushes everyone, INCLUDING the poor into a bad healthcare system.

As you said yourself, " Human beings not being able to be treated with top medical care. Is this not a great evil." Top medical care will be extremely rare under the Obama plan. Mediocre, rationed care should not be the goal.

 

[vz71]

But if you “win” and universal health care is lost is that also not a great evil.

That assumes the only thing wrong with the plan currently being put forth is the inclusion of abortion. That would be an incorrect assumption. There are many other problems that make the current plan unacceptable.

I totally understand your opposition to abortion but is it not evil to prevent people from getting the medical treatment they need in order to fight this abortion issue.

I submit that you do not at all understand our opposition to abortion.
Your attempt to place a denial of medical treatment in the same class of evil as abortion tells me this.
The two just are not the same.

Fight abortion in the legal area! Not at the expense of the poor!!!

So allow abortion for the sake of the poor?
Sorry, that is unacceptable.
Abortion is evil. It must be fought against on all possible fronts.

 

[vz71]

I agree with the bishops that the inclusion of abortion makes the healthcare bill simply unacceptable.

However, that’s not the only problem with the bill. It is being opposed on more grounds than the inclusion of abortion, and by more people than just those who are pro-life.

The big argument I keep hearing of why the plan is unacceptable does not mention abortion at all.
In my case, I heard about the abortion argument later on.

What makes the plan unacceptable to most has to do with the reduction in quality of care. One can readily witness other countries that have socialized health care and the various health care problems it creates.

 

[1ke]

But if you “win” and universal health care is lost

You have presented this as either/or. It is not. It can be both/and.

Human beings not being able to be treated with top medical care. Is this not a great evil. All money belongs to God. Is not meant by God that everyone receive proper medical treatment.

If people could not get treated, you might have a point. That is not the case. In this country people can and do receive proper medical care. If you want to talk about people not receiving health care-- look at the 3rd world. They don’t receive the basics. Perhaps all our money should go to other countries and not our own.

We cannot solve every moral evil in the world. We can do the best we can to help those in need. Reforming health care-- which can be done without government-run “universal” health care-- should definitely be a priority.

But so should the suffering and sick in other countries. Why should we have MRIs and cancer treatment in the US when they don’t even have malaria medicine or basic health care in Africa? That’s an injustice. How can you support giving all Americans top care when Africa is denied basic health services?

Your logic is flawed.

I totally understand your opposition to abortion but is it not evil to prevent people from getting the medical treatment they need in order to fight this abortion issue.

No. It isn’t. Furthermore, I am not preventing anyone from getting health care.

I think that preventing people from getting proper medical treatment is a terrible terrible evil and that is just what the bishops and people who are supporting htem are doing. (although perhaps with good intentions of stopping abortions)

People get health care now. Your argument is flawed.

I think it is evil to hold people who need medical treatment but can’t afford it hostage in order to push anti abortion. This is the WRONG PLACE. Fight abortion in the legal area! Not at the expense of the poor!!!

Abortion kills people. It’s wrong. I will fight it with every means I can until I am dead, and then I’ll fight it from purgatory or heaven (if I am so lucky as to end up in either place).

No one is holding health care hostage to abortion. Abortion could easily be removed from all health care initiatives. Talk to your liberal buddies who want it in there at all costs. Killing babies is always wrong and must always be opposed. It does not follow that health care must be contingent upon abortion. Your entire argument is flawed.

It is also disingenuous to frame our health care system as if people cannot get treatment, because this is simply not true. There are tons of people who REALLY cannot get treatment dieing in the streets of India, in Africa, in other underdeveloped countries or dictatorial regimes. So, America should GIVE UP it’s health care dollars and send all that money elsewhere by your logic.

 

[bloke916]

According to the CCC:

The political community has a duty to honor the family, to assist it, and to ensure especially:
…in keeping with the country’s institutions, the right to medical care, assistance for the aged, and family benefits;
the protection of security and health, especially with respect to dangers like drugs, pornography, alcoholism, etc.;
… (CCC 2211)

How do we ensure everyone the right to medical care without universal health care?

 

[Like]

I understand your concern for the poor - but I’m sorry. I don’t agree. If we bend - using the reasoning in your second-to-last paragraph - then, what is the definition of the ‘Church Militant’? Are you aware of what “immoral things” will be done? I’m guessing none of us knows even the half of it. I think that the politicians or the media are promoting the general term “health care to the poor” rather than necessary health care.

IF - and it’s a big IF - Obama or any politician were concerned about the “poor” getting health care, it would be for accidents, necessary surgeries, etc. - the necessities of health not convenience. I’ve been without health care insurance for YEARS - with little prospects of it - and I pay out of pocket. If I need surgery, I’m in big trouble. And STILL I wouldn’t trust any of the current “health plans” being promoted. They come with dangerous strings attached - and my guess is our taxes will still pay for it - there won’t be any free rides from the government.

Politicians who have the money and could well afford it on their own - VOTED IN THEIR OWN health plans years ago - not just for themselves but for their families, while we watched. Why didn’t they vote FIRST on behalf of the poor if their interest was sincere? Because they either think for themselves first - or DON’T CARE about their constituents. If they did, the situation wouldn’t be where it is already. This is not sour grapes - this is fact. Am I the only one who feels this way?

No way, You are not alone!