Why is socialism bad by Church teaching?

[lynnvinc]

Here is an update for all of you in the states if you haven’t seen it yet. My company’s health insurance rates increased 17% for next year due to Obama-Care. Just want to let everyone know.

There would have been great “economies of scale” savings had we gone to a “socialistic” health care system, as they have in France. I have a relative there. She had a difficult pregnancy, and got her paid maternity leave extended, all medical procedures taken care of, and her young children are all taken well care of by quality childcare professionals. I don’t think she pays for any of this, or pays some nominal price, but she and other French citizens are willing to pay higher taxes.

Generally you get what you pay for – but sometimes if its done incorrectly, like our health care system as it is today (and even will be under the new program), you end up paying more and more and more for less and less and less. It’s called not getting the most (or hardly any) bang for the buck.

But that’s the way we want it, I guess – the not-so-smart way of doing things.

I would suggest people watch SICKO (Michael Moore docu) – it is right on the dot. Except he fails to mention that Costa Rica ranks 36th in the world on health care, above our U.S. ranking of 37th. Of course the Western European “socialist” countries all rank much higher. See: photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html.* But don’t feel too bad, Cuba, Mexico, and India rank below us.

I had the chance to meet the President of Costa Rica, and I told him about the ranking some 8 years ago – he didn’t know about it.

---

*See here for how WHO came up with the rankings.

 

[lynnvinc]

Another stat that’s interesting. I’ve long suspected that we have higher abortion rates than most Western European socialistic countries, and I just looked it up, and except for Sweden (4.16 abortions per 1,000 pop), which ranks a bit higher than the U.S. (4.09), we do rank higher than Western European socialist countries that have good universal health care systems.

See: nationmaster.com/graph/hea_abo_percap-health-abortions-per-capita

Notably Russia and Bulgaria are much higher. So autocratic communism and its aftermath are not good things. But note Poland at .014 (the lowest in the ranking) – it seems the best of all worlds (re reducing abortion) is to be a practicing Catholic socialist country.

I just can’t help thinking that if a pregnant woman had the assurance of a medical system that wouldn’t bankrupt her over the youth of her child, a quality childcare system (no babysitters from hell), and paid maternity leave, she just might be more willing to have that child, rather than abort it.

Of course, a man that would stand by her and help her care for the child would also help…One who never gets sick or loses his job.

 

[Monk21]

Another stat that’s interesting. I’ve long suspected that we have higher abortion rates than most Western European socialistic countries, and I just looked it up, and except for Sweden (4.16 abortions per 1,000 pop), which ranks a bit higher than the U.S. (4.09), we do rank higher than Western European socialist countries that have good universal health care systems.

See: nationmaster.com/graph/hea_abo_percap-health-abortions-per-capita

Notably Russia and Bulgaria are much higher. So autocratic communism and its aftermath are not good things. But note Poland at .014 (the lowest in the ranking) – it seems the best of all worlds (re reducing abortion) is to be a practicing Catholic socialist country.

I just can’t help thinking that if a pregnant woman had the assurance of a medical system that wouldn’t bankrupt her over the youth of her child, a quality childcare system (no babysitters from hell), and paid maternity leave, she just might be more willing to have that child, rather than abort it.

Of course, a man that would stand by her and help her care for the child would also help…One who never gets sick or loses his job.

AMERICANS COULD HAVE HAD A GOOD MEDICAL BILL, but the republicans and weak democrats messed it up.
All the wining I see here abt raises insurance cost could have been avoided and they pick Obama as the scape goat of all their problems. Like I said before Dumb, Dumb, and Dumber.
It is like the old days of McCarthyism changed from communism now to socialism.

 

[ERose]

There would have been great “economies of scale” savings had we gone to a “socialistic” health care system, as they have in France. I have a relative there. She had a difficult pregnancy, and got her paid maternity leave extended, all medical procedures taken care of, and her young children are all taken well care of by quality childcare professionals. I don’t think she pays for any of this, or pays some nominal price, but she and other French citizens are willing to pay higher taxes.

Generally you get what you pay for – but sometimes if its done incorrectly, like our health care system as it is today (and even will be under the new program), you end up paying more and more and more for less and less and less. It’s called not getting the most (or hardly any) bang for the buck.

But that’s the way we want it, I guess – the not-so-smart way of doing things.

I would suggest people watch SICKO (Michael Moore docu) – it is right on the dot. Except he fails to mention that Costa Rica ranks 36th in the world on health care, above our U.S. ranking of 37th. Of course the Western European “socialist” countries all rank much higher. See: photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html.* But don’t feel too bad, Cuba, Mexico, and India rank below us.

I had the chance to meet the President of Costa Rica, and I told him about the ranking some 8 years ago – he didn’t know about it.

---

*See here for how WHO came up with the rankings.

So you think it would be a good idea for us to adopt a federal program in France that is going bankrupt? Where doctors complain that the compensation they get from the government is usually not enough to pay for the costs so in many cases have to charge the patient in addition to cover costs? Where a single person on average pays slightly over 50% in federal income taxes where here he/she pays a little under 30%. A country that uses VAT taxes depending on what you buy anywhere from 5.5 to 29%. Sounds great to me.

In this country we could easily fix the system without socializing it. Simply by evaluating where the costs are coming from and how to make it more efficient. Socializing is not going to reduce costs it is going to increase costs primarily because of the institution of the beaurcracy required to manage it.

Also is it going to similar to the medicare/medicaid systems, which do not completely cover costs either? Who do you think covers the rest of the costs in these clinics and hospitals? The private paying citizen and/or insurance companies that is who.

But there are many areas we can fix to reduce costs: mal-practice insurance, abuses by hospitals concerning the prices they charge to cover all of costs that are not covered, such as patients not paying, medicare/medicaid shortage, etc.

But personnally I am extremely happy with my health care that I and my family have and I am not ready for my federal income taxes to nearly double to pay for the government to take it over. I believe that the far majority of people in this country agree with me on this subject.

Also concerning Micheal Moore’s entertainment movie Sicko has been shown to possess lies and misinformation mixed in.

 

[ERose]

Another stat that’s interesting. I’ve long suspected that we have higher abortion rates than most Western European socialistic countries, and I just looked it up, and except for Sweden (4.16 abortions per 1,000 pop), which ranks a bit higher than the U.S. (4.09), we do rank higher than Western European socialist countries that have good universal health care systems.

See: nationmaster.com/graph/hea_abo_percap-health-abortions-per-capita

Notably Russia and Bulgaria are much higher. So autocratic communism and its aftermath are not good things. But note Poland at .014 (the lowest in the ranking) – it seems the best of all worlds (re reducing abortion) is to be a practicing Catholic socialist country.

I just can’t help thinking that if a pregnant woman had the assurance of a medical system that wouldn’t bankrupt her over the youth of her child, a quality childcare system (no babysitters from hell), and paid maternity leave, she just might be more willing to have that child, rather than abort it.

Of course, a man that would stand by her and help her care for the child would also help…One who never gets sick or loses his job.

Equating low abortion rates to socialized healthcare is huge stretch my friend. Abortion has very little to do with health or the lack of since we have an abortion on demand system here in the United States and in most if not all European Countries now. People have abortions because they do not want the baby not because they are sick. Abortions are performed for selfish reasons. I know that pro-death people uses health as an excuse, but due to the advances in medicine the need to abort a child to save the life of the mother is vertually nill now.

Poland is a predominate Catholic state that has a large percentage of practicing Catholics. So it would make since that countries that have a very large group of practicing Catholics would have lower abortion rates.

Concerning the support systems for these women they are out there. There are many crisis pregnancy groups out there and there are many charity hospitals out there as well that she can go to as well. She can also through the court systems make the father’s child pay for child support to help out. You also have the welfare system in this country as well. Is it going to be easy for her? No. Personally it shouldn’t be.

 

[ERose]

AMERICANS COULD HAVE HAD A GOOD MEDICAL BILL, but the republicans and weak democrats messed it up.
All the wining I see here abt raises insurance cost could have been avoided and they pick Obama as the scape goat of all their problems. Like I said before Dumb, Dumb, and Dumber.
It is like the old days of McCarthyism changed from communism now to socialism.

No it was never a good bill Monk. It was over 1000-2000 pages that no one who voted for it read. That is not a good bill it is a horrible bill. To prove how great it was, my representative, John Fleming, instituted an ammendment to it, to force all federal employees and officials to participate in the single payer system and it got voted down by those who where claiming how great the system is. It was messed up from the beginning and stayed messed up through the whole process.

All the Democrats did was award the health insurance companies so that these companies will keep funneling them money to get re-elected.

 

[Vezelay]

No it was never a good bill Monk. It was over 1000-2000 pages that no one who voted for it read. That is not a good bill it is a horrible bill. To prove how great it was, my representative, John Fleming, instituted an ammendment to it, to force all federal employees and officials to participate in the single payer system and it got voted down by those who where claiming how great the system is. It was messed up from the beginning and stayed messed up through the whole process.

All the Democrats did was award the health insurance companies so that these companies will keep funneling them money to get re-elected.

Medicaid and Medicare are and have always been single payer systems and they are embraced and loved by all despite the stupid Bush drug addition that Dems tried to stop and which added billions to the deficit (banning negociation with drug companies-as is done for veterans-and creating the donut hole were more than stupid, they were outrageously expensive and painful for seniors who are not wealthy)

There is no single payer system in the new health care law. The public option did not even make it. The law reaffirms and reinforces our private insurance company system. Yes, the insurance companies will make a lot of money but that seems to be the American Way.

We force people to pay for immunizations (can’t get into school without them) even if they do not have insurance.They are forced by the federal gov’t to pay a clinic to get the shots. Well, what is wrong with asking the freeloaders to buy insurance and not take advantage of the rest of us who do buy insurance (because we are not stupid and do not want to face bankruptcy - 2/3 of bankruptcies are because of medical bills --even young healthy people break a leg ($12,000) once in a while and if they are not poor often end up declaring bankruptcy).

But I don’t know what any of this has to do with socialism which is the ownership of the means of production by the state. China, Cuba, Israel… and who else? the western European democracies are capitalistic with a touch of socialism here and there… oh, Italy and Switzerland and several others own their railroads…oh, socialism. Most of you are confusing socialism with the social welfare state. I recommend you read the encyclical Mater et Magister concerning social justice. The great thing about this letter is that the whole first part is a primer on all the great encyclicals from Leo XII (labor unions) in the 19th century, all through Pius XI and XII. They speak of distributive justice and subsidiarity (a word I had never heard before) and even conspicuous consumption. What they all recommend sounds a lot more like what the European democracies are doing than what the US is doing. Germany has the best economy in the world at this moment and everybody has health care. Remember it was John Paul II who affirmed that health care is a basic human right.

 

[Monk21]

So you think it would be a good idea for us to adopt a federal program in France that is going bankrupt? Where doctors complain that the compensation they get from the government is usually not enough to pay for the costs so in many cases have to charge the patient in addition to cover costs? Where a single person on average pays slightly over 50% in federal income taxes where here he/she pays a little under 30%. A country that uses VAT taxes depending on what you buy anywhere from 5.5 to 29%. Sounds great to me.

In this country we could easily fix the system without socializing it. Simply by evaluating where the costs are coming from and how to make it more efficient. Socializing is not going to reduce costs it is going to increase costs primarily because of the institution of the beaurcracy required to manage it.

Also is it going to similar to the medicare/medicaid systems, which do not completely cover costs either? Who do you think covers the rest of the costs in these clinics and hospitals? The private paying citizen and/or insurance companies that is who.

But there are many areas we can fix to reduce costs: mal-practice insurance, abuses by hospitals concerning the prices they charge to cover all of costs that are not covered, such as patients not paying, medicare/medicaid shortage, etc.

But personnally I am extremely happy with my health care that I and my family have and I am not ready for my federal income taxes to nearly double to pay for the government to take it over. I believe that the far majority of people in this country agree with me on this subject.

Also concerning Micheal Moore’s entertainment movie Sicko has been shown to possess lies and misinformation mixed in.

Now tell us what lies Michael Moore has told in Sicko. He dealt with real people, what were the lies?

 

[Monk21]

Take a look at Bill Gates ideas on Creative Capitalism. Just type it in Google he gives a talk on the social Justice of these new ideas.

Americans need to come out of the dark ages and listen even to what President Eisenhower said, that you have to be aware of what drives your economy.

 

[jimpres]

Take a look at Bill Gates ideas on Creative Capitalism. Just type it in Google he gives a talk on the social Justice of these new ideas.

Americans need to come out of the dark ages and listen even to what President Eisenhower said, that you have to be aware of what drives your economy.

Spending is sure not what drives the economy to debt reduction.

 

[Monk21]

Spending is sure not what drives the economy to debt reduction.

Well Roosevelt got you guys out of the depression by spending.

 

[jimpres]

Well Roosevelt got you guys out of the depression by spending.

His spending just delayed the recovery like today. Look at the 1920, reduce taxes, cut large government and we had the Roaring 20’s. Capitalism by any other definition.

 

[Prophesy]

Well Roosevelt got you guys out of the depression by spending.

That’s not necessarily true. As has been said, this may have even just lengthened the problem.

Government money can come from 2 primary sources

1. Taxation - Increasing taxes will lower the disposable income of the affected group of civilians.
2. Printing - Printing money causes inflation and will depreciate the vale of the money.

Foreign money can also play apart, but generally governments do not pass aid from one government to another unless there is a grave need or a transfer of goods, and even then the giving government likely receives it from either taxation or printing itself.

If the value of your money is too high (i.e. there isn’t enough to go around, the government could print more and purposefully cause inflation.)

However, the best way to maintain a healthy economy is to reduce taxes on production (corporation taxes, income taxes, etc) and regulate consumer taxes (sales tax, etc).

-Prophecy

 

[estesbob]

Well Roosevelt got you guys out of the depression by spending.

The Great Depression ended on December 7, 1941. It would have ended a lot sooner had it not been for Roosevelt’s economic policies

 

[Monk21]

The Great Depression ended on December 7, 1941. It would have ended a lot sooner had it not been for Roosevelt’s economic policies

A war will always put people to work and that was what Eisenhower was afraid of, having a military driven economy.

 

[Vezelay]

The Great Depression ended on December 7, 1941. It would have ended a lot sooner had it not been for Roosevelt’s economic policies

If only you had read history at university. Historians generally agree that Roosevelt pulled back too early, worrying about deficits. If only he had continued spending programs, relief would have come about long before the war. He spent too little, not too much. As it turned out, WWII was the biggest stimulus program in history. We spent and spent and spent… money that we didn’t have but which we borrowed and borrowed and borrowed (buy war bonds!!!), resulting in the most gigantic debt the world had/has ever known… but it worked. Going into debt enabled us to create zillions of jobs, in the military, in the replacements for those who joined the military, in factories… everywhere. Everybody went back to work and the economy boomed (and, incidentally, we saved the world for democracy). If only the president had put into effect a stimulus the size recommended by economists, we might be coming out of this recession more quickly. Alas, those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it. A lesson should have been taken from Roosevelt’s timidity and silly fear of deficits. Pick up your history books everyone.

 

[Monk21]

If only you had read history at university. Historians generally agree that Roosevelt pulled back too early, worrying about deficits. If only he had continued spending programs, relief would have come about long before the war. He spent too little, not too much. As it turned out, WWII was the biggest stimulus program in history. We spent and spent and spent… money that we didn’t have but which we borrowed and borrowed and borrowed (buy war bonds!!!), resulting in the most gigantic debt the world had/has ever known… but it worked. Going into debt enabled us to create zillions of jobs, in the military, in the replacements for those who joined the military, in factories… everywhere. Everybody went back to work and the economy boomed (and, incidentally, we saved the world for democracy). If only the president had put into effect a stimulus the size recommended by economists, we might be coming out of this recession more quickly. Alas, those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it. A lesson should have been taken from Roosevelt’s timidity and silly fear of deficits. Pick up your history books everyone.

Although i agree abt what you have to say abt Roosevelt, you did not save the world for democracy…The British, Russians,Poles, French, Indians, Chinese and Canadians won the war with the Americans being a big part of it.

 

[ERose]

Medicaid and Medicare are and have always been single payer systems and they are embraced and loved by all despite the stupid Bush drug addition that Dems tried to stop and which added billions to the deficit (banning negociation with drug companies-as is done for veterans-and creating the donut hole were more than stupid, they were outrageously expensive and painful for seniors who are not wealthy)

Medicare and Medicaid is embraced and loved by all? So you are saying that no one is dissatisfied with either one of these systems. Out of the millions of people in these systems there is not one individual disatisfied? Watch using the word all, especially in situations that there is going to be a bell curve statistically.

Concerning the Bush drug addition, it is the only thing in the Medicare and Medicaid coming in under budget (by 50 billion) and not over budget.

There is no single payer system in the new health care law. The public option did not even make it. The law reaffirms and reinforces our private insurance company system. Yes, the insurance companies will make a lot of money but that seems to be the American Way.

I did not say it was in the law. I said it was attempted and got pushed out early in the process. Then it got replaced with “government option”, which got pushed out as well. The amendment I was referring to was early in the process during the single payer/government option bills. I agree with you on the insurance companies making out like bandits on this one. I wonder why that is since the leaders in Washington have been bashing “big business”. Yet it is “big businesses” who are getting the most out of these new spending laws.

We force people to pay for immunizations (can’t get into school without them) even if they do not have insurance.They are forced by the federal gov’t to pay a clinic to get the shots. Well, what is wrong with asking the freeloaders to buy insurance and not take advantage of the rest of us who do buy insurance

There are these things called community health clinics that are found in most urban communities that provide free or very low cost immunizations. Maybe you do not have them where you live, but they are available down here in LA.

Here is the reason why it is wrong to demand that people get health insurance and make it law. It is against the Constitution. The federal government does not have the authority to force anyone to buy health insurance.

But I don’t know what any of this has to do with socialism which is the ownership of the means of production by the state. China, Cuba, Israel… and who else? the western European democracies are capitalistic with a touch of socialism here and there… oh, Italy and Switzerland and several others own their railroads…oh, socialism. Most of you are confusing socialism with the social welfare state. I recommend you read the encyclical Mater et Magister concerning social justice. The great thing about this letter is that the whole first part is a primer on all the great encyclicals from Leo XII (labor unions) in the 19th century, all through Pius XI and XII. They speak of distributive justice and subsidiarity (a word I had never heard before) and even conspicuous consumption. What they all recommend sounds a lot more like what the European democracies are doing than what the US is doing. Germany has the best economy in the world at this moment and everybody has health care. Remember it was John Paul II who affirmed that health care is a basic human right.

I responded to a post that had too many inaccuracies in it. That is why I wrote the post. Nothing more. I didn’t start it. I responded to it.

Concerning Germany, in what category are you referring to? At this time in terms of GDP it is the US, China, Japan, Germany in that order. China is most probably the fastest growing. I believe I read somewhere around 11% annually. But it could be in another category. I am just interested.

1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus by Pope John Paul II:

“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 provoke 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. “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 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 who act as neighbors 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.”

 

[ERose]

His spending just delayed the recovery like today. Look at the 1920, reduce taxes, cut large government and we had the Roaring 20’s. Capitalism by any other definition.

Don’t forget WWII as well.

 

[ERose]

If only you had read history at university. Historians generally agree that Roosevelt pulled back too early, worrying about deficits. If only he had continued spending programs, relief would have come about long before the war. He spent too little, not too much. As it turned out, WWII was the biggest stimulus program in history. We spent and spent and spent… money that we didn’t have but which we borrowed and borrowed and borrowed (buy war bonds!!!), resulting in the most gigantic debt the world had/has ever known… but it worked. Going into debt enabled us to create zillions of jobs, in the military, in the replacements for those who joined the military, in factories… everywhere. Everybody went back to work and the economy boomed (and, incidentally, we saved the world for democracy). If only the president had put into effect a stimulus the size recommended by economists, we might be coming out of this recession more quickly. Alas, those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it. A lesson should have been taken from Roosevelt’s timidity and silly fear of deficits. Pick up your history books everyone.

We in America are sure glad that the stimulus works. I mean look how great our economy is now. If they would have left it alone we would be climbing right now. But no our government had to go fix things and now we are working on year two for the recession and most probably have a year three as well, when most recessions have a life cycle of 6-9 months.

What boosted the economy during WWII and after? Demand that is what. During WWII it was demand to support the war effort. After WWII it was increased consumer demand that maintained the growth of the economy. Consumer demand is the force behind the growth of the economy not stimulus packages, taxation, new entitlements, etc.

Consumers have more money to spend and they are comfortable about the future, then they will spend their money. Most Americans and Businesses as well are not spending because they do not know what is coming down the line. Another recession? Tax increases? How is Obamacare going to impact my family and business? etc. Everytime a government official opens his mouth it is doom and gloom. Until confidence comes back, consumer demand will remain low, and jobs will not be created on the scale required.

Giving money to the banks, auto manufacturers, unions and to expand government is not going to stimulate the economy. That is not how it works.