Who will you be supporting in the U.S. presidential election with our Catholic values in mind?

Status
Not open for further replies.
None of the options are perfect. They all have their faults. I will support President Trump.
 
As you know, all ERISA qualified employment based plans MUST cover pre-existing conditions. Medicare and Medicaid do too. So the only ones that are not covered are those few people who are not disabled, not poor, not sufficiently wealthy to buy forced placement plans, not family members of a covered person, and not employed.
 
Last edited:
What is your point? Working people who do not get employer based plans are used to getting screwed? Or, it’s only 1 million Americans, we won’t even miss them when they are gone?. ( It is wierd confronting these conservative ideas on a Catholic website)
Trump has a special threshold where his actions remain wonderful if the carnage level stays below a threshold. Not sure what that is.
He can also declare not only the " possibility of Hell" but also who might be in it . Just another day in the Trump presidency.
Honestly, you identified different economic circumstances, but 1 in 5 Americans with pre-existing has nothing to do with ones economic circumstance.
The GOP is 100% responsible for this. They took Obamacare that was Constitutional and MADE IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL with their tax cut for the rich legislation.
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
So the only ones that are not covered are those few people who are not disabled, not poor, not sufficiently wealthy to buy forced placement plans, not family members of a covered person, and not employed.
Click to expand...
These people you mention are not the spawn of hell. They should have protection too.
 
When I was sick, you do not care for me.
Lord, when did we see you sick and not care for me.
When you did not care for one of these, the least of my brothers.
The second part, the goats, we never seem to consider. I suppose we shy away from the crowd consigned to eternal fire. I think this is common actually. We don’t think it is talking about us.
What I know I missed for years was an important distinction. A distinction that is important in our modern dialog about charity and helping the least. Many have written in a " penumbra" which we know ( but often refuse to admit) is not in the text and there really is no basis to assume a limitation Jesus insinuates.( Other than one " really wants it so" or others like minded form a circle and then reassure in “circular assurance” Jesus did)) So many political views totally depend on this penumbra. With the fires of hell waiting if they are wrong.
The first part. Those who help the least( therefore Christ) arguably select their own times, places, and least. For those who believe the option theirs, the first part is certainly consistent.
The second part however does not give us choice. For the goats, the least materialize whenever they do. When they do, your option to select does not exist. ( Check it out see if I am right). Your choice of who you want to give care to does not exist because Jesus on the throne of judgement tells you a guy presented, you could have, and you chose not to. The goats don’t even know when Jesus was there and you slammed the door( or built a wall)
At random the least presents. You are literally confronted by and have the option to help them( help Jesus) or not.
For the Catholics who seem to envision a very low number or percentage who will recieve salvation, this should be especially alarming( David Bentley Hart calls them Infernoists) to the narrow gate enthusiasts. Matthew 25 sets forth the only passage in all of scripture where Christ actually judging anyone to hell exists. It is argued as actually supporting the catechism involving hell by apologists.
I find it a bit ironical when the enthusiast( Infernoists) is a modern Trump fan.
Not only here, when I was sick, you did not care for me, but also, when I was a stranger, you did not welcome me.
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
The GOP is 100% responsible for this. They took Obamacare that was Constitutional and MADE IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL with their tax cut for the rich legislation.
Click to expand...
Not true. From a leftist standpoint, the Dem party is responsible for it. They had a chance to pass total government healthcare that Obama wanted, and they had enough votes to pass it, but they didn’t. So now something like 30 million have no coverage of any kind. If Dems really cared anything about the uninsured, they would look at their own ranks.
 
What? The Democrats could not even get the pilot program Biden wants.
The GOP had full control and amended Obamacare and made it unconstitutional.
It was Constitutional and the GOP LEGISLATION ended insurance for those 30 million. Tax cuts for the richest on earth and you regular people will just have to pay for it with the lives of loved ones. The ethic could not be better served on a silver platter for all to see. Somehow the unborn are the only living
 
Maximus1 said:
The elimination took place months ago. The case is on appeal and a stay of execution is entered ( that’s why millions are not excluded as I write. )
It was a Texas case. This case might be consolidated on Appeal if SCOTUS deals with it.
As it turns out legislation preventing exclusions for pre-existing is Constitutional but the Texas court threw out all of Obamacare.
If sustained on appeal, 1 in 5 Americans will be subject to being tossed off coverage. Pregnancy is pre-existing. Giving us the most Dickensian health Care system in the Civilized world.( If we still qualify).
" WHEN I WAS SICK YOU CARED FOR ME."
Click to expand...
It is almost certain that this will not be sustained on appeal and the Affordable Care Act will stand. The arguments used by the judge in question are so questionable that you had even strong opponents of the Affordable Care Act saying the opinion was nonsense. For example, these posts by Jonathan Adler (hardly a friend to the ACA!) dissect why the opinion made little sense:
https://reason.com/2018/12/14/breaking-district-court-judge-in-texas-h/
https://reason.com/2018/12/21/why-no-one-has-standing-to-challenge-the/

As he states:

“I would be quite surprised if this opinion survives the inevitable appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and even more surprised if this result garners the support of more than two justices on the Supreme Court (if the case even gets that far).”
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
40.png
Maximus1:
The GOP is 100% responsible for this. They took Obamacare that was Constitutional and MADE IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL with their tax cut for the rich legislation.
Click to expand...
Not true. From a leftist standpoint, the Dem party is responsible for it. They had a chance to pass total government healthcare that Obama wanted, and they had enough votes to pass it, but they didn’t. So now something like 30 million have no coverage of any kind. If Dems really cared anything about the uninsured, they would look at their own ranks.
Click to expand...
The Democrats didn’t have enough votes to pass it. Normally, you only need 51 votes in the Senate to pass a bill, but the Republicans were filibustering. When a filibuster is going on, you need 60 votes to end it–effectively requiring 60 votes to pass a bill that is being filibustered. If you count Bernie Sanders, there were only 59 Democrats in the Senate at the time. To get to 60 votes they had to get Joe Liebermann, an Independent, to sign on. But Liebermann rejected the idea of a public option so they had to eliminate that in order to get the necessary 60th vote to pass the law.

To claim that the Democrats “had enough votes” to pass “total government healthcare” is just plain incorrect.
 
Last edited:
The case is remanded by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to the same judge. Thing is, the administration argued to sustain the lower court ruling. And they have wanted repeal all along. If pre-existing coverage survives IT IS DESPITE TRUMP AND MCCONNELL. That is the fact.
 
The 30 million were uninsured well before the GOP took control of congress. Obamacare just wasn’t universal healthcare. Not for a moment.
 
So the republicans are looking to set this country back into the stone-age, circa 2008?

And Culture of Death is an often used Papal term, as well as used by a Saint. If it bothers you, take it up with Saint JPII.
 
The "culture of death " is indeed a term used by St. JPII, but he did not ascribe it to any one political party. It describes society itself. There are elements of the culture of death that hits home with Republicans too.
 
Last edited:
While not speaking directly to what those elements are, I would agree it was not targeted at one party per se. I simply pointed out that the person taking issue with the phrasiology should reconcile that with our Pope, twice removed.
 
I think the complaint was for the usage, not for the phrase itself. One can take a legitimate phrase and use it in a manner where it becomes a propaganda slogan.
 
Per the OP, Tulsi Gabbard is who I will vote for if she is on the ballot. I’m sick of this partisanship dung on both sides. She is the only candidate that resembles a Statesman in any way.

If she’s not on the ballot I probably won’t even vote.

thehill.com

Gabbard rips Pelosi for delay of impeachment articles

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii), a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, criticized Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) after she said that she would delay delivering House-passed impeachment articles ag…
thehill.com thehill.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top