Why do Catholics and other religious people have such opposing views about Abortion, Health Care, and Government involvement in our lives?

[aspawloski4th]

In other words, you read into an ambiguous bill that was written by very questionable individuals and read by very few in congress or elsewhere what you want to see and believe what you hope for and ignore what Obama and those pushing for this power grab actually say?

No wonder we are in such trouble in our society.

What has ruined healthcare in the USA is that it has been transformed from an industry to make a living in to and a business to make a profit off of, which is unethical and immoral. When my wife gets her treatments for her various health problems, I could care less about some big CEO’s desire for a bonus. The CEO didn’t save a life of nyone to earn it. If one wants to be a big time millionaire CEO go into a business like entertainment, or hospitality, or something that isn’t life or death. When you go into medical you deserve to make a living! You are not there to get rich quick. For profit medical should be banned.

 

[gakroeger]

What has ruined healthcare in the USA is that it has been transformed from an industry to make a living in to and a business to make a profit off of, which is unethical and immoral. When my wife gets her treatments for her various health problems, I could care less about some big CEO’s desire for a bonus. The CEO didn’t save a life of nyone to earn it. If one wants to be a big time millionaire CEO go into a business like entertainment, or hospitality, or something that isn’t life or death. When you go into medical you deserve to make a living! You are not there to get rich quick. For profit medical should be banned.

I am sure there are a few people who go into the medical profession just like other professions such as teaching for unselfish reasons to help humanity. And if all people operated under this principle what a wonderful world it would be, however, God did not design this world to be perfect. He created the world and put us humans in it to become perfect for the next everlasting life. With human nature being what it is, and the capitalistic form of government we have (which is far from perfect, but has been by far the most successful model for government) people expect to be compensated for their talents and contributions. To suggest that the brightest and most capable people should avoid the medical profession and go into entertainment or some other field is not realistic.

To ban profit from the medical industry (or to turn it over to a corrupt government) will cause the brightest and best to seek other endeavors, why would we want to drive the incentive out of attracting the best minds into the medical field?

I also think you are wrong about high paid CEO’s being the problem with the medical field. The problem IMHO is that we have allowed the greed of some in the legal profession to drive malpractice insurance out of sight and others through massive fraud to bilk Medicare and insurance companies (and us as tax payers and insurance premium buyers) out of massive sums of money.

 

[gakroeger]

Medicare, and for a bit of time Medicaid. She is disabled.

So, are you saying that if the government had not started taking money from your paycheck in 1965 and thus begun the Medicare experiment, you would not have used that money to buy private health care insurance?

 

[rtconstant]

In other words, you read into an ambiguous bill that was written by very questionable individuals and read by very few in congress or elsewhere what you want to see and believe what you hope for and ignore what Obama and those pushing for this power grab actually say?

No wonder we are in such trouble in our society.

You keep trying to base political views on sound bites, preconceived assumptions, and spam mail. I’ll keep looking at what politicians actually do.

And for the record I don’t see what I want to see in HR 3200 at all. If I made the bill insurance companies would become not for profit. So no I don’t really care for the Obama bill all that much. A single payer system would be vastly superior. But I’m also not going to judge his policies on straw man assertions.

 

[Bluegoat]

Given that there is an effort to pass a health care bill in the US now, I suppose people want to discuss it.

However, it’s not exactly the defining moment for publicly funded health care in the world. There are lots of other examples of how it can be done. None, alas are perfect, and there are some difficulties that really have nothing to do with what system is in place, they are simply related to efforts to provide care at all.

As it stands, I don’t see how a system that allows the kind of things private insurance companies do now to continue can be a good system. When insurance companies won’t insure doctors for giving the best care, or let citizens make reasonable choices about how they will treat their bodies, there is something wrong philosophically. And it seems very ironic to me that people are worried about government appointed groups making decisions about what kind of care they might have access to, when they are being sc***ed by insurance companies making the same decisions now. Not to mention actual costs of care in the US are far far higher than those found in other places because of the nature of the system.

OTOH, is it reasonable to expect President Obama to be able to somehow create a system that brings insurance companies to heel? I can just imagine if he tried - there would be no way he would be able to make any improvements at all if he took that route. I’m afraid when I think about the reasons why, they don’t reflect very well on the situation to me.

 

[aspawloski4th]

So, are you saying that if the government had not started taking money from your paycheck in 1965 and thus begun the Medicare experiment, you would not have used that money to buy private health care insurance?

What money ? I can hardly keep a roof over my head with the peanuts I made. This year I was let go just before I was elegible for heal insurance at where I work. You have had life to easy to understand for real life for some. I’m 41 my wife is 45. I didn’t exist in 1965. Don’t assume everyone has or can aquire a good job. I don’t know what it is like in my adult life to have a good job.

 

[gakroeger]

You keep trying to base political views on sound bites, preconceived assumptions, and spam mail. I’ll keep looking at what politicians actually do.

And for the record I don’t see what I want to see in HR 3200 at all. If I made the bill insurance companies would become not for profit. So no I don’t really care for the Obama bill all that much. A single payer system would be vastly superior. But I’m also not going to judge his policies on straw man assertions.

You are stating opinion as fact. By using sound bite terms like “sound bites” you attempt to disarm truth in others statements. The only “sound bites” I used was actual quotes from Obama. Your arguments are circular and do not make sense, if you do not have sound arguments for a position you revert to rhetoric. I gave you specific reasons why non profit insurance and health care do not work in the real world and you, instead of coming back with a factual rebuttal, you give me rhetoric totally ignoring the issue we are discussing. If you have a case for non profit insurance and medical care, please explain how it would work in the real world without emotion or pie in the sky wishes.

What money ? I can hardly keep a roof over my head with the peanuts I made. This year I was let go just before I was elegible for heal insurance at where I work. You have had life to easy to understand for real life for some. I’m 41 my wife is 45. I didn’t exist in 1965. Don’t assume everyone has or can aquire a good job. I don’t know what it is like in my adult life to have a good job.

You accuse me of assuming your status and then you come right back tell me I have had life too easy? After you read this back, do you realize what you just did?

Yes, I assumed you were older because you stated that your wife was treated under Medicare. A natural assumption, no? So, you were apparently under disability or some government help. I am glad you received help, I am not arguing against helping people in true need. However, you cannot raise yourself by dragging others down. In order for any government to be able to help people in true need, it needs people building and supporting the systems that provide that help. If you dis-incent productive people and encourage them to become part of the helped instead of part of the helpers, you soon over whelm the system.

Let me tell you a little of my “easy” life. I am 70 years old, yes I had a job all my life (since I was 16). I started at 98 cents an hour. My jobs were not easy, for the first 10 years of my married life I worked away from home 5 days a week, I moved my family of five children around the country 9 times in 20 years following where the work was. I was diagnosed with cancer when I was 34 years old. I broke my back in an auto accident when I was 50 years old and had a heart attack when I was 56 years old. And during this whole period of time was able to pay into, Medicare, IRS, State and local taxes in several cities and states. In retirement I work about 20 hours per week doing volunteer work for the Knight of Columbus and Saint Vincent DePaul. Please don’t “assume” I live in isolation, I visit poor and destitute people every week with SVDP and I see the problems that are out there. I believe I have a good prospective on what is happening in our world and our Country in particular.

I am sorry your life has not been easy either, however, please don’t kill our way of life by supporting greedy politicians that promise what they very well know they cannot deliver. They are doing this for one reason only, to gain and hold power over us the people.

 

[rtconstant]

You are stating opinion as fact. By using sound bite terms like “sound bites” you attempt to disarm truth in others statements. The only “sound bites” I used was actual quotes from Obama. Your arguments are circular and do not make sense, if you do not have sound arguments for a position you revert to rhetoric. I gave you specific reasons why non profit insurance and health care do not work in the real world and you, instead of coming back with a factual rebuttal, you give me rhetoric totally ignoring the issue we are discussing. If you have a case for non profit insurance and medical care, please explain how it would work in the real world without emotion or pie in the sky wishes.

Because I’m getting tired of talking to the air. You have real world scenarios of non-profit insurance working. You gave theories based on obviously flawed logic, sense in the real world non-profit insurance does in fact work. Switzerland, Germany, could go on. Anyway, if you’re happy with propaganda stick with it. You don’t care about facts you care about an ideology that you’re paradigm is obviously very linked to. So sure go ahead and keep believing that non-profit insurance doesn’t work even though it works successfully everyday in the real world. Keep believing that people will just stay at home and not work if they have health care, even though people all over the world get up and go to work with public health care. Keep believing that medical technology will cease to progress even though France, Germany, Japan and Switzerland prove that wrong every day. Keep tilting and maybe one day you’ll get that windmill. I’m out.

Peace.

 

[aspawloski4th]

You are stating opinion as fact. By using sound bite terms like “sound bites” you attempt to disarm truth in others statements. The only “sound bites” I used was actual quotes from Obama. Your arguments are circular and do not make sense, if you do not have sound arguments for a position you revert to rhetoric. I gave you specific reasons why non profit insurance and health care do not work in the real world and you, instead of coming back with a factual rebuttal, you give me rhetoric totally ignoring the issue we are discussing. If you have a case for non profit insurance and medical care, please explain how it would work in the real world without emotion or pie in the sky wishes.

You accuse me of assuming your status and then you come right back tell me I have had life too easy? After you read this back, do you realize what you just did?

Yes, I assumed you were older because you stated that your wife was treated under Medicare. A natural assumption, no? So, you were apparently under disability or some government help. I am glad you received help, I am not arguing against helping people in true need. However, you cannot raise yourself by dragging others down. In order for any government to be able to help people in true need, it needs people building and supporting the systems that provide that help. If you dis-incent productive people and encourage them to become part of the helped instead of part of the helpers, you soon over whelm the system.

Let me tell you a little of my “easy” life. I am 70 years old, yes I had a job all my life (since I was 16). I started at 98 cents an hour. My jobs were not easy, for the first 10 years of my married life I worked away from home 5 days a week, I moved my family of five children around the country 9 times in 20 years following where the work was. I was diagnosed with cancer when I was 34 years old. I broke my back in an auto accident when I was 50 years old and had a heart attack when I was 56 years old. And during this whole period of time was able to pay into, Medicare, IRS, State and local taxes in several cities and states. In retirement I work about 20 hours per week doing volunteer work for the Knight of Columbus and Saint Vincent DePaul. Please don’t “assume” I live in isolation, I visit poor and destitute people every week with SVDP and I see the problems that are out there. I believe I have a good prospective on what is happening in our world and our Country in particular.

I am sorry your life has not been easy either, however, please don’t kill our way of life by supporting greedy politicians that promise what they very well know they cannot deliver. They are doing this for one reason only, to gain and hold power over us the people.

You will have to look for them in recent posts to find them, but please read what I have posted in these medical related threads about monatary policy and the constitution. Give you a hint when you see the phrase" created out of thin air" you have found it. No matter who is in power we have a money system that hold the populace in slavery, where high lofty principles about going in debt and following the constitution don’t matter anymore. The constitution hasn’t applied in my life time or lifetime, so I decided to be pragmatic rather than pretending to be for lofty ideals. I don’t begrudge you. For as much as the system has ruined the American way of life already, I figure it can be taken advantage of to save a few lives.

 

[gakroeger]

Because I’m getting tired of talking to the air. You have real world scenarios of non-profit insurance working. You gave theories based on obviously flawed logic, sense in the real world non-profit insurance does in fact work. Switzerland, Germany, could go on. Anyway, if you’re happy with propaganda stick with it. You don’t care about facts you care about an ideology that you’re paradigm is obviously very linked to. So sure go ahead and keep believing that non-profit insurance doesn’t work even though it works successfully everyday in the real world. Keep believing that people will just stay at home and not work if they have health care, even though people all over the world get up and go to work with public health care. Keep believing that medical technology will cease to progress even though France, Germany, Japan and Switzerland prove that wrong every day. Keep tilting and maybe one day you’ll get that windmill. I’m out. Peace.

I am not sure whether it is easier to talk to the air or a wall. The air probably can’t understand your logic either. Are you actually using Switzerland, Germany, and other European countries to argue for this disaster of a health care plan?

Saying it, does not make it so. Can you site some examples (unbiased sources) where these systems are working? I have not heard of any.

And, you accuse me of buying into propaganda? Have you been to these Countries you site; do you understand what is going on over there? Have you seen firsthand the decline of these cultures? Every expert on Sociology agrees that virtually every European culture will cease to exist in the next 20 to 30 years because they are not reproducing at a rate required to maintain a culture; and, this situation has advanced so far already that it is now irreversible. These cultures are rapidly becoming Islamic. You call my logic an ideology; my ideology is called the Bible. The ideology that Europe has been following for the past 20 years is socialism and this is the ideology the current administration is following. A godless ideology that ignores the wisdom of the Bible and thinks its own wisdom better; it drives God and His word out of daily life to its own demise. Contraception, abortion, acceptance of worldly values over God’s values, has set them on a course of extinction.

Again, please explain your logic, I explained why nonprofit does not work with these industries. Please explain how your nonprofit would work; I don’t know how the European models work, so please explain how a system with no incentives for the workers would work? I can see how a structure with overall non profit for the system could work if the individuals working inside the system were paid according to their contribution and skill level. However, for individuals to work (for the good of man) without being fairly compensated as you previously suggested is in MHO destined to fail. The old Eastern European Bloc and the Soviet Union also operated under this fallacy, look what it did for them. Like most of this liberal thinking, it is not indepth, no one who supports these concepts thinks through the process, they merely look at what outcome they want and HOPE it will work the way they want. It never does.

We are already suffering from just the threat of such a government takeover of health care. My own physician told me that “they cannot make me go to work, if things get bad with dictated rates making it impossible to make a decent profit I will quit and do something else”. My grandson who was planning on becoming a cardiologist has changed his mind based on what his doctor recommended he do because of the impending administration plan. You can argue that what these doctors believe is propaganda and untrue, however, regardless if it is true or not, perception is reality and people are already beginning a avoid entering the medical fields because of this health care plan. And, their concerns should be taken seriously, they are highly educated people.

If you are looking for wisdom, read these documents, they come from knowledgable and trust worthy sources;

Humanae Vitae

Caritas-in-Veritate

 

[ahollars]

Because I’m getting tired of talking to the air. You have real world scenarios of non-profit insurance working. You gave theories based on obviously flawed logic, sense in the real world non-profit insurance does in fact work. Switzerland, Germany, could go on. Anyway, if you’re happy with propaganda stick with it. You don’t care about facts you care about an ideology that you’re paradigm is obviously very linked to. So sure go ahead and keep believing that non-profit insurance doesn’t work even though it works successfully everyday in the real world. Keep believing that people will just stay at home and not work if they have health care, even though people all over the world get up and go to work with public health care. Keep believing that medical technology will cease to progress even though France, Germany, Japan and Switzerland prove that wrong every day. Keep tilting and maybe one day you’ll get that windmill. I’m out.

Peace.

I’m still waiting for a response. Are you even capable of providing one? I answered you directly and you ignored it. Who has the better argument now?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Sound familiar? Wake up America….

Liberals at Nobel are pro abortion.

Nothing surprising here.

Killing innocent people is fine as long as it advances the world toward the new age that they desire.

 

[rtconstant]

I’m still waiting for a response. Are you even capable of providing one? I answered you directly and you ignored it. Who has the better argument now?

Didn’t realize there was anything left to address. I went back through and found your post on the first page. I covered this a couple of times but I guess those were on different threads. Anyway, here is the low down on abortion in the bill, hopefully you will bother to read it.

HR 3200 itself did not have any provisions for abortion when it was introduced. However the “Capps Amendment” was added and it does have regulations for abortion. Basically it works like this: the public funds will cover conditional abortions that are covered currently by Medicare under the Hyde Amendment. Those conditions are: rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. Elective abortions while forbidden the use of public funds, can and likely would be covered by premiums from private insurance companies. Now the loophole I had mentioned in previous posts comes in here. The government will help offset policy costs for companies and individuals. If the policy in question covers elective abortion then those subsidies would in a sense cover abortion. Now here’s the problem, most insurance policies in use today will actually cover abortion. So that leaves a wide range of accessibility. It also should be noted that this is more or less the way things are now. The only difference is that individuals and companies will be paying less out of pocket costs for their policies.

There is an irony, and a hope here though. The Capps Amendment was proposed as a “compromise”, I know not much of one, and it was fought by pro-life representatives in both parties. However, after it was voted in, pro-abortion groups became afraid. Because there is a reverse loophole. There is a bill that is currently being developed which forbids private insurance companies from covering abortion. If that bill passes then accessibility to abortions in the US will actually become more restrictive, and the Capps Amendment would then work against pro-abortion groups.

 

[ahollars]

…The government will help offset policy costs for companies and individuals. If the policy in question covers elective abortion then those subsidies would in a sense cover abortion. Now here’s the problem, most insurance policies in use today will actually cover abortion. So that leaves a wide range of accessibility. It also should be noted that this is more or less the way things are now. The only difference is that individuals and companies will be paying less out of pocket costs for their policies…

The Vatican has already informed us that this is unacceptable. Not only should we not be content with it, but we have a duty to fight it with all our efforts. The bill that just passed the Senate Finance Committee is not subject to the Hyde Amendment. The House version may have it, but do you seriously expect it to survive the reconciliation process? This is where you argument falls short. It is incomplete. The Senate version is the one that has everyone up in arms. The House version will go back on the shelf, since it will never pass in the Senate, and the House will be left to vote in favor of the Senate version. If pro-abortion groups are excited, and they certainly are right now, then we should be nervous and need to remain vigilant.

 

[rtconstant]

The Vatican has already informed us that this is unacceptable. Not only should we not be content with it, but we have a duty to fight it with all our efforts. The bill that just passed the Senate Finance Committee is not subject to the Hyde Amendment. The House version may have it, but do you seriously expect it to survive the reconciliation process? This is where you argument falls short. It is incomplete. The Senate version is the one that has everyone up in arms. The House version will go back on the shelf, since it will never pass in the Senate, and the House will be left to vote in favor of the Senate version. If pro-abortion groups are excited, and they certainly are right now, then we should be nervous and need to remain vigilant.

And here is where you argument fails. What is being proposed already exists. Other than vague reproaches that abortion should be illegal, I’m hearing a resounding silence here on the fact that private carriers already fund abortions. The only thing new here is that ALL policies might receive subsidies. No one seems to really care that must Americans are already indirectly funding abortions, just that most Americans may indirectly fund abortions and also be covered in their healthcare.

 

[rtconstant]

And here is where you argument fails. What is being proposed already exists. Other than vague reproaches that abortion should be illegal, I’m hearing a resounding silence here on the fact that private carriers already fund abortions. The only thing new here is that ALL policies might receive subsidies. No one seems to really care that most Americans are already indirectly funding abortions, just that most Americans may indirectly fund abortions and may also be covered in their healthcare.

*edited for grammar and added a word

 

[gakroeger]

And here is where you argument fails. What is being proposed already exists. Other than vague reproaches that abortion should be illegal, I’m hearing a resounding silence here on the fact that private carriers already fund abortions. The only thing new here is that ALL policies might receive subsidies. No one seems to really care that must Americans are already indirectly funding abortions, just that most Americans may indirectly fund abortions and also be covered in their healthcare.

This is a pretty inaccurate assumption. There is so much abuse out there, that one must pick their battles.

I personally spend much time researching the charities that I contribute to because many (such as the Susan G Koman foundation) are affiliated with Planned Parenthood and many local chapters of Susan G Koman provide funding to their local Planned Parenthood chapters. Many other charities are also involved in one way or another cooperating with Planned Parenthood. I will not contribute a dime to any charity that cannot be trusted to insure that the money I contribute is used for the purpose they advertize and not to help abort babies.

AND WHILE WE ARE ON THIS SUBJECT, PLEASE ALL PRO LIFERS, BE AWARE OF THIS AND WATCH WHERE YOU CHARITABLE DOLLAR ARE BEING USED.

 

[rtconstant]

This is a pretty inaccurate assumption. There is so much abuse out there, that one must pick their battles.

I personally spend much time researching the charities that I contribute to because many (such as the Susan G Koman foundation) are affiliated with Planned Parenthood and many local chapters of Susan G Koman provide funding to their local Planned Parenthood chapters. Many other charities are also involved in one way or another cooperating with Planned Parenthood. I will not contribute a dime to any charity that cannot be trusted to insure that the money I contribute is used for the purpose they advertize and not to help abort babies.

AND WHILE WE ARE ON THIS SUBJECT, PLEASE ALL PRO LIFERS, BE AWARE OF THIS AND WATCH WHERE YOU CHARITABLE DOLLAR ARE BEING USED.

I was referring more to the fact that most people get their insurance through their companies and that often these policies cover abortion. Also you are correct that Susan Koman foundation supports abortion. Which is ironic considering that abortion has been linked to breast cancer.

 

[ahollars]

And here is where you argument fails. What is being proposed already exists. Other than vague reproaches that abortion should be illegal, I’m hearing a resounding silence here on the fact that private carriers already fund abortions. The only thing new here is that ALL policies might receive subsidies. No one seems to really care that must Americans are already indirectly funding abortions, just that most Americans may indirectly fund abortions and also be covered in their healthcare.

I’m curious to know which companies you have discovered that list abortion as one of the services they subsidize. I’ve had five different health insurance companies through the different employers I’ve been under since I left the military, and none of them cover abortion in any form. For the record, they are: Aetna, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Cigna, Humana Inc., and Principal Financial Group. Why would they not do it while others do? That doesn’t even make sense from a business standpoint. Somebody is obviously losing money.

 

[athansor]

My guess to the original question is that, in the US at least, no political party lines up completely with Catholic teachings. The Republicans have become a party with a pro-life platform, but they also tend to be pro-war and pro-death penalty. The Democrats are typically pro-choice, although there is a group called Democrats for Live, but on issues of caring for the poor and marginalized, they seem pretty strong.

Some people believe that the pro-life views of a politician trump all other issues. Others might think that after 8 years of a pro-life administration with little movement to end abortion, it might be worthwhile to look at ways that abortions can be reduced.

While I believe that all Catholics should be united in trying to end abortions, I also believe that Catholics of good faith can disagree on other issues, like economic systems, whether or not health care should be provided by government, whether a country should fight pre-emptive wars, whether the death penalty is a good idea or not, etc.