Why are Catholics generally less critical of Capitalism compared to Socialism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Krisdun
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Montrose said:
You don’t pop into a medical center for a transplant and long term cancer care.
Are you telling me that a person who needs a heart transplant will get it even if they cannot pay?
Are you telling me that someone diagnosed with cancer and will need long term treatment, maybe years, will get it even if they can’t pay?
Click to expand...
Yes. They can, the hospital cannot refuse to treat someone based on inability to pay.
Montrose said:
You said 2 fatally wounded people. That means they both die.
Everybody has a right to healthcare.
Click to expand...
I should have said severely wounded.

My point was, you can’t call something a right that is dependent on actions from someone else where they may have to make a choice on who treat based on physical limitations.

Speech is a right because anyone can say say anything.

Self defense is a right because people can fight back for themselves.

Healthcare is not because most people can’t perform medical procedures on themselves.
 
In general most people are capitalists therefore Catholics are less critical of it. As for socialism it tends to destroys individuality & tries to make us all equal under one system.
 
And it would be our taxes paying for it which becomes a huge sticking point.

I think a lot of people would be fine with paying for a health care system that covers diabetes and maternity care and blood pressure pills.

But you know the abortion types and the activists insisting on sex change operations will insist on feeding at the trough.
 
RhodesianSon said:
I should have said severely wounded.
Click to expand...
I would expect any doctor who comes across two severely wounded men to assess them solely medically and not look to see if they have an insurance card in their wallet.

The US is out of line with the entire developed world on universal health care.

By the way I answered your questions but you still have not answered my questions about heart transplant and long term cancer treatment.
 
I did answer your question. They will be treated. They can’t be refused necessary medical care because they can’t pay.
 
RhodesianSon said:
They will be treated.
Click to expand...
What does “will be treated” mean?
A person who cannot pay will get a heart transplant?
A cancer patient who needs long term treatment for years will receive it?
If that is the case why does anyone need to pay for health insurance?
 
They pay for health insurance to offset the cost. They will receive all necessary medical treatment and they will also receive a bill. That can be quite substantial.
 
RhodesianSon said:
My point was, you can’t call something a right that is dependent on actions from someone else where they may have to make a choice on who treat based on physical limitations.

Speech is a right because anyone can say say anything.

Self defense is a right because people can fight back for themselves.

Healthcare is not because most people can’t perform medical procedures on themselves.
Click to expand...
Then how would the right to life apply to the unborn when they depend on someone?
 
A government big enough and powerful enough to give you everything you want, is also big enough and powerful enough to take everything you have.

Let us never forget that.
 
MNathaniel said:
Name them.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding? Heard of Tony Blair who was Prime Minister of the UK and leader of the socialist party?

EU countries which currently have socialist governments: Greece, Slovakia, Malta, Portugal and Spain.

France and Germany have also had socialist governments.

None of the above are communist parties.

All of these governments go along with capitalism.
 
Last edited:
That’s a tricky one. Might be less of a right to life for the child and more of not having a right to kill for the parents. Rights are important but so are duties. And there is no duty more important than that of a parent to a child.
 
If healthcare is to be treated like a commodity just like any product on the market, it has to have transparent pricing.

After all you don’t sit down at a restaurant and order food without knowing the price. Same thing for gas at a gas station or for a pair of jeans at Target.

So why should the price of a medical procedure be any different? More often than not people get a nasty surprise in the form of a surprise bill way after the procedure is done. If you get hit by a car and an ambulance brings you to the emergency room while you’re unconscious, it’s kind of hard to shop around for the best price. Afterwards, you’re hit with a $30,000 bill. That is not healthcare in a free market.

This has to be addressed by people who propose a free market for healthcare instead of government provided care.

The status quo right now has the consumer at a marked disadvantage. That is the opposite of a free market.
 
Last edited:
But a government doesn’t have to give you everything you need or want to be able to take away something from you.

It can give you nothing and yet can still take away something from you.
 
True, but the bigger and more powerful a government gets, the easier it is for that government to take everything you have. As long as government remains small, the more power the people have, the less likely the government would dare encroach upon their rights, property and freedoms.

When the people fear the government, that’s tyranny.

When the government fears the people, that’s liberty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top