Why is socialism bad by Church teaching?

[Monk21]

Yes, Monk, but what of your moral fiber? Have you not stolen from your healthier neighbor? Or deprived the less fortunate of his chance to die in poverty? Have you not selfishly cut yourself off from the means to do good to the poor?

And the insurance executive; what of him? Have you not taken the very bread from his lips and deprived him of his livelihood?

Do you not live in fear, with every stented heartbeat, that you will be called to account for this?

Mea cupa, mea cupa, mea maxima cupa! How selfish of me. I didn’t realize I was that corrupt.

 

[Geowitz]

Cricket - Claiming that something is so cheap and easy to do and feels soooo good doesn’t make it right. You can justify the means to your ends as much as you want, but freedom and free will is the only way to true compassion, charity, justice, and prosperity. It’s obivous you have a great deal of contempt for freedom, atleast for others to practice. Like I said before, admit it. You want the control to provide for those you deem disadvantged with other people’s money, but not their consent. I want freedom so those closest to the need can voluntarily provide thus shifting the focus back to our individual responsibilities to others. I sense some collective salvation undertones in your posts. Care to explain? I just want those in government to “govern as God does, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom”(catechism #1884). Socialism does not do this. It governs through control, not freedom.

 

[Geowitz]

Geowitz wrote:
*I would also argue that single payer goes WAY beyond the responsibility of government because your article says that the social benefit programs are intended to help the poor and needy. The purpose of single payer is not specifically to help the poor and needy. It ties EVERYONE up into a single payer system INCLUDING those who are not poor or needy. That is why it is socialism. So really your view of healthcare isn’t in sync with Catholic social teaching because it’s not about just helping the poor. It’s about removing my freedom as well which violates Catholic social teaching. It’s all about the progression to socialism. Some want control, some want freedom. Freedom that results in true justice and charity. *

Now when Jesus told the parable of the laborers, did he not say that those who worked all day got the same pay that those who worked only an hour? Rich or poor they all got the same pay.
What is the difference if health care gives the same to both the rich or poor?
Only that the poor can survive also?

I am also against abortion and I would place myself as centre left.

Ummm… they got payed the same because the employer VOLUNTARILY chose to do so. He did a charitable thing the way it was intended - by his own free will. So should everyone get payed the same now that you found this seemingly secret bible parable?

“But he answered one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Didn’t you agree with me for a denarius? Take that which is yours, and go your way.** It is my desire to give to this last just as much as to you. Isn’t it lawful for me to do what I want to with what I own?** Or is your eye evil, because I am good?’ So the last will be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few are chosen.”

You guys love proving my points don’t you…

 

[Abu]

Cricket123
In my view, right-wing ideology unjustly elevates individual rights over collective obligations and the laws of the marketplace over social justice. Combine this with Christianity and you get Puritanism, not Catholicism.

That statement may involve some politicians and some economists which you have not specified. This discussion centres around why socialism has been condemned by Christ’s Church and, ipso facto, what economic and political system is in accord with Her teaching. Obviously democracy is acceptable, and Her Late Scholastics developed the laws of free enterprise based on cause and effect. Your assumption that what you feel is “not Catholicism” is quite arbitrary, and appears to confuse the laws of economics with the people who act in a society.

There is much confusion over “social justice” so a clarification may be useful:
Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on Nov-24-2003 (EWTN):
“The term “social justice” was introduced into Catholic teaching in the 19th century. On the one hand, it is intended, at least in part, to avoid the error of reducing what Aristotle calls “general justice” (devotion to the common good of one’s country) to LEGAL justice. On the other hand, consciously or not, the term “social justice” aptly reflects the political philosophy of the modern philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, according to whom justice is fundamentally a matter of achieving the proper institutions and external settings that would effectively mold human beings into model citizens. In other words, for Rousseau, justice is not rooted in nature as it is for Aristotle and for the Church’s teaching. It is something that has to be attained by “social engineering.”

“Unfortunately, in the minds of many if not most, consciously or not, the term “social justice” is viewed more in a Rousseaunian than an Aristotelian way. From the vantage point of both Aristotle and the Church’s teaching, the phrase “social justice” is redundant because justice is already social: it is the social virtue par excellence.” [My underlining].

In the parable of the talents, Jesus Christ, God the Son, lauds the servant who has multiplied talents – “For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Mt 25: 14-30). He is telling us that it is right to use our talents to create wealth.

 

[Cricket123]

That statement may involve some politicians and some economists which you have not specified.

Hi Abu -

The right-wing ideology I’m referring to is the vaguely defined one currently popular here in America, usually associated with the Republican Party and the so-called “Tea Party”, and promoted especially through Fox News.

It’s somewhat nebulous, but the unifying theme is generally “taxes bad.” This ranges from the libertarian “all taxes bad,” to the somewhat more mainstream “Federal taxes bad.” Other popular sub-themes include: “Government bad,” “Obama bad,” “Muslims bad,” and “immigrants bad.”

Since a large number of the American right-wing are either Fundamentalist or Evangelical, another popular sub-theme is “Jesus good.” Combined with the above, this often leads to “The Bible tells me that… taxes bad, Obama bad, Muslims bad &c.”

The common reaction of the American right-wing is to label any non-military expense, especially at the Federal level, “socialism.” It seems to me this kind of thinking is increasingly popular with American Catholics, to varying degrees.

The point I was trying to make in my first post here, from which we have digressed somewhat, was simply this:

The Church condemns socialism, but not everything that is called socialist by the American right-wing is condemned by the Church. My example was Canadian style, single-payer healthcare, which is at worst, I think, neutral by Church teaching.

Nowhere in my posts have I advocated for communal ownership of property, a centrally planned market, or a total welfare state: just single-payer healthcare - which is maligned as “socialism” by the American right-wing.

If I understand him, Geowitz sees taxes as theft of his private property and a National Health Service as a violation both of his freedom and of subsidiarity. He also believes a National Health Service to be unconstitutional, but that is a separate issue.

I think paying higher taxes, myself included of course, is worth the benefit. I do not see National Health as a violation of subsidiarity because I do not see that it is within the capability of the States or communities - if it were, why is it still such a problem? From my experience, I believe the Canadian system works better and is what we should adopt. I do not see that this example violates the teaching of the Church.

For the record, I do believe in a system of free enterprise. What I do not support is an unregulated, laissez-faire market. I am not opposed to creating wealth or private property. I just don’t hate paying taxes as much as some, even though, believe me, I pay them.

 

[Monk21]

Ummm… they got payed the same because the employer VOLUNTARILY chose to do so. He did a charitable thing the way it was intended - by his own free will. So should everyone get payed the same now that you found this seemingly secret bible parable?

“But he answered one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Didn’t you agree with me for a denarius? Take that which is yours, and go your way.** It is my desire to give to this last just as much as to you. Isn’t it lawful for me to do what I want to with what I own?** Or is your eye evil, because I am good?’ So the last will be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few are chosen.”

You guys love proving my points don’t you…

No, I think you are missing the point. You value your freedom more than you care abt the suffering of others. In the biblical text no one was harmed, the owners was free to choose, but he harmed no one.
It was either Yale or Harvard I forget which, who said that every year 45,000 Americans die because they did not have health insurance. Yet you are free to deny help to these people. That must make you feel good abt your freedom.
You can do good, but together you could do better.

 

[Geowitz]

If I understand him, Geowitz sees taxes as theft of his private property and a National Health Service as a violation both of his freedom and of subsidiarity. He also believes a National Health Service to be unconstitutional, but that is a separate issue.

Yes and no. It becomes theft when it is not within the realm of the responsibility of those who are collecting the taxes. I have no problem with taxes assuming that the principle of subsidiarity is respected.

 

[Geowitz]

No, I think you are missing the point. You value your freedom more than you care abt the suffering of others. In the biblical text no one was harmed, the owners was free to choose, but he harmed no one.
It was either Yale or Harvard I forget which, who said that every year 45,000 Americans die because they did not have health insurance. Yet you are free to deny help to these people. That must make you feel good abt your freedom.
You can do good, but together you could do better.

So I am harming others with my God given freedom?

You can do good, but together you could do better.

True, but when the “together” is by coercive force, charity is lost and the better usually becomes worse.

NO ONE here is disagreeing as to whether the needy should be taken care of. Niether Cricket or I feel that the needy shouldn’t be taken care of, but I can see how you got that idea. In a way I guess you’re right though. I do value my freedom very much, but only because I believe it is the best way to help the needy. I specifically said that freedom and free will as givien by God are the best ways to reach true charity, compassion and justice. You seem to be of the opinion that the only way for everyone to get healthcare is for the government to do it, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. It’s exactly the freedom I value so much that if realized and championed by others that would take care of FAR more people than ANY government health system.

 

[Abu]

Cricket123
not everything that is called socialist by the American right-wing is condemned by the Church. I do believe in a system of free enterprise. What I do not support is an unregulated, laissez-faire market. I am not opposed to creating wealth or private property. I do not see National Health as a violation of subsidiarity because I do not see that it is within the capability of the States or communities -

That is clearer, but many don’t understand that there are different schools of economists who distort the free enterprise system and that this permeates the policies of many governments. For instance the policies proposed and supported under President Carter have been one major factor in the woes of the U.S. meltdown. Where does an unregulated, laissez-faire market exist? These “right-wing” and “left-wing” broad-brush entities tend to conceal the real issues.

Health Insurance is merely one aspect, which seems to have become paramount, here. Bishop of Fargo, North Dakota Samuel J. Aquila has written a letter encouraging priests, deacons, vowed religious and laymen to become engaged in promoting "genuine health care reform” in the U.S.A., at:
catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16987
He quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church’s description of subsidiarity, which holds that a “higher order” of society should not needlessly interfere with or displace a “lower order.”
“As a society seeks to bring about any good such as health care, there are many organic and intermediate groups which cooperate together to reach the desired goal. There is a danger in being persuaded to think that the national government is the sole instrument of the common good,” he continued.
“Many different communities within society share this responsibility,” Bishop Aquila explained, naming communities such as the state, towns, fraternal organizations, businesses, cooperatives, parishes and the family as contributors to the social fabric.

The Bishop affirmed also that reform must exclude any provisions which deny "the dignity of human life, the right to follow one’s conscience, as informed by God, must be guaranteed, and access to health care must be ensured for the poor, the elderly, the handicapped, legal immigrants and the unborn.” Obviously abortion, euthanasia and contraception are all involved.

The danger in national government control is to dictate at feeling and whim that such grave concerns be overridden especially in the existing very real climate of chaos involving grave crisis, which is worldwide with relativism, selfism and secularism. The reality is that in the U.S. House of Reps and Senate, for instance, most of the self-styled Catholics couldn’t care less about the grave issues of morality which have been raised.

From *Centesimus Annus *(John Paul II, 1991):
“Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State [Welfare 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.100

“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 ways of 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 and who act as neighbours 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. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care.”
“Note
100. Pius XI, Encyclical Letter Quadragesimo Anno, I : loc. cit., 184-186.”

 

[Black_Rose]

How predictable Abu! Recycling the same quotes!

My previous responses:

Ok, so what are the allegedly “dehumanizing effects” on those who receive benefits from a welfare state? No, the point of the welfare state is that it is effective if it has adequate funding, more effective than “family, neighbors, churches, unions, fraternal societies, or other associations.”

Irrelevant! You or your quotes do not explain how the welfare state leads to a loss of “human energies”. I do not see how the state necessarily undermines “individuals, families, businesses, charities, cooperatives, mutuals and professional and civil associations” but the state merely relieves them from most of their responsibility to provide material welfare for the unfortunate. Besides it is likely that the state is more effective than those groups since it has the power to tax and possesses the bureaucratic machinery to efficiently process information and effectively act in a coordinated fashion. In contrast, the aggregate sum of private charity, notwithstanding that it is at most a meager 2% of GDP, are reactionary deeds done disparately, where many are conducted with sincerity and others for self-recognition, with often no teleological purpose, since most charitable acts merely the mitigate the symptoms of human material privation with little intention of actually addressing systemic problems. Notable exceptions are organizations with access to plenty of funding, enabling them to be more broad in scope, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation or George Soros’ the Open Society Institute.

I don’t see how the welfare state leads to “a loss of human energies”. Your quote does not explain how the welfare state inadequately provides for the material needs of people, just that the state itself is incapable “of perceiving the deeper human need”. But the welfare state can nurture feelings of friendship and sympathy among countrymen as I described in my post in the thread. How is that “dehumanizing”?

Here’s a hint:

It seems like most of your posts are just copying and pasting assertions, devoid of any substance, from obviously right-wing websites. Try to copy and paste from someone such as Henry CK Liu who often includes detailed elaboration of history in his writings. For example, this has many historical examples and detailed elaborates of the perspectives of well-known economic thinkers.

Provide historical examples of the inefficiency of welfare states or even specific government programs. Try to imitate Liu style (very hard but try) instead of just copying and pasting right-wing rants from the Acton Institute.

On Abu’s assertion about the alleged historical and economic ignorance of leftists.

It’s no surprise that those who have no use for democracy or free enterprise, can’t factually show any benefits in their imagined socialist paradises. Apart from some who know nothing about economics, or about economic history, there are those who also know nothing about those many countries steeped in graft and corruption, and often warring tribes and revolution, and which have profited little from the massive aid provided from free enterprise societies, and the great advances of great men like Norman Borlaug who actually lived among them and showed them how to benefit from his genetically modified green revolution

Good job cricket, being on the hill (metaphorically). Throwing quality pitches with excellent command that are able to consistently paint the corners to get ahead in the count . You are certainly nonplussing the opposition with your stuff by getting them looking and overpowering them by inducing some whiffs.

The decision on my start against Abu and ErRose were wins. But I need to rest before my next scheduled start (since I am somewhat busy).

I’ll enjoy seeing you shutout Abu and Geowitz.

 

[Abu]

Black_Rose
I don’t know what exactly is a “socialist paradise” but countries such as Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Germany have extensive social welfare systems and are in a better fiscal state that the United States.
I do not see how Bourlag’s work and accomplishments support a right-wing interpretation of history and economics.

Ad nauseam, Black Rose “doesn’t know” and doesn’t see”. A citing of lesser hours worked for European welfare states might mean something if it translated into better family life – the warp and woof of civilization. But does it? And what does it mean in isolation as presented by BR – it tells us nothing, and conceals the facts.

mises.org/daily/2190
How the Welfare State Corrupted Sweden, Per Byland
(Per Bylund works as a business consultant in Sweden, in preparation for PhD studies).

"My grandmother, born in 1920, was of the last generation to have that special personal pride, of having a firm and deeply rooted morality, of being a sovereign in life no matter what — to be the sole master of one’s fate. The people of her generation experienced and endured one or two world wars (though Sweden never took part) and were raised by poor Swedish farmers and industrial workers. They witnessed and were the driving force behind the Swedish “wonder.”

"Their morality assured they could survive any condition. If they found themselves not being able to live off their wages, they would only work harder and longer. They were the architects and construction workers in building their own lives, even though it often meant hard work and enduring seemingly hopeless situations.

"Decent morality is long gone. It was completely destroyed in little more than two generations — through public welfare benefits and the concept of welfare rights.

"From the perspective of a bystander (as I consider myself) this madness all makes sense — teaching people they do not need to worry about the consequences of their actions makes willingly dependent subjects. The welfare state has created the egotistical monsters it claims to save us from — through handing out privileges and benefits to everybody at “nobody’s” expense.

"The social engineers of the welfare state obviously never considered a possible change in morality and perception — they simply wanted a system guaranteeing security for everybody; a system where the able could and should work to support themselves, but where the unable too could live dignified lives. Who would have thought the progressive reforms to secure workers’ rights and prosperity for all in the early 20th century would backfire philosophically and morally?

"It can’t work.
This new morality is the obvious opposite of that of my grandparents’ generation. It is a morality claiming independence can only be achieved through handing over responsibility to others, and that freedom can only be attained through enslaving others (and oneself). The result of this degenerated morality on a social or societal level is a disaster economically, socially, psychologically, and philosophically.

"But this is also a personal tragedy for many thousands of Swedes. People seem unable to enjoy life without responsibility for one’s actions and choices, and it is impossible to feel pride and independence without having the means to control one’s life. The welfare state has created a dependent people utterly incapable of finding value in life; instead, they find themselves incapable of typical human feelings such as pride, honor, and empathy. These feelings, along with the means to create meaning to life, have been taken over by the welfare state.

“Perhaps this explains why such a large part of the young population now consumes antidepressant medication, without which they are unable to function normally in social situations. And presumably it explains why the number of suicides among very young people who never really knew their parents is increasing dramatically (the total number of suicides remaining about the same). Still people are totally unable to see the problem or find a solution. Like spoiled children, they call for “help” through the state.”

 

[Cricket123]

Good job cricket… I’ll enjoy seeing you shutout Abu and Geowitz.

Hi BlackRose -

While I appreciate the cheerleading, it is not my intention to “shutout” Abu and Geowitz. My intentions are to defend my position, specifically on single-payer healthcare, as a valid, Catholic one, and to suggest, as far as I can, that the right-wing politics espoused by Fox News are not a necessary consequence of authentic Christian belief.

If I can also counter assumptions such as “the left-wing is pro-abortion,” which I am certainly not, that would be nice as well.

 

[Cricket123]

By automatically laying the responsibility of healthcare on the doorstep of the federal government you are promoting the removal of my ability to make that prudential judgment. In other words, when you make it federal I am too far removed from the decision. Those farthest away from the situation are making the decision.

Well, I would not say that I am automatically laying this responsibility in the federal government. I think that the market approach has been tried and has not worked. Leaving healthcare in the hands of private insurance companies, subsidized by both federal and state government, employers, employees, and private consumers has resulted in the current mess: millions uncovered, millions inadequately covered. Decisions are still made by a far-removed bureaucracy, just a private, for-profit one.

You wrote in an earlier post:

“It’s obivous you have a great deal of contempt for freedom, atleast for others to practice. Like I said before, admit it. You want the control to provide for those you deem disadvantged with other people’s money, but not their consent. I want freedom so those closest to the need can voluntarily provide thus shifting the focus back to our individual responsibilities to others.”

I don’t see how I am leaving you any less free than either of us is already. I would propose that single-payer healthcare be considered, debated, and voted on in the usual manner. It is not at all clear what the outcome of this would be.

Our taxes are already used to provide for others without our, at least explicit, consent. Iraq was invaded without my consent; Wall Street was bailed out without my consent. That is the downside of a democratic republic.

Even so, as I see it, the purpose of the federal government is to provide the “United,” in United States. What does Massachusetts have in common with Louisiana, practically speaking, without some common notion of “America?” Why should I be concerned, beyond general human sentiment, if New Orleans washes into the sea? More so, why should I pay for it, if not for the notion of “America?”

Indulge me for a minute and look at these statistics.

Some states receive more in federal aid than they pay in federal tax; others pay more in tax than they receive in federal aid. In fact, 32 states are “recipient states,” 17 are “donor states.” In other words, 17 states are paying all the bills. Also, if you live in one of the top 32 states, in essence, you don’t pay any federal income tax at all. Your money comes right back to your state and then some. In some cases, it comes back doubled.

Yet 25 of these 32 states are hotbeds of anti-tax, small government Republican politics. I have relatives in South Carolina who are always happy that they have no state income tax. Yet the only reason they can afford to have no income tax is because Massachusetts, in essence, pays it for them. So why are they complaining about socialism, redistribution of wealth, or unjust taxation, when they are beneficiaries of these?

If anyone should be complaining about unjust taxation, it should be me. I don’t, though. Yet I’m often maligned as “unpatriotic” or “Northern liberal elite.” When New Orleans washes into the sea, the people closest to the need don’t pay for it; I pay for it. Red States keep taxes low because I make up the difference. It is both socialism and redistribution of wealth, but it is also a consequence of living in a large nation with disparate interests.

We already have measures of socialism and redistribution of wealth that directly and substantially benefit the people who are most opposed to it. I do not understand this.

For all practical purposes, I have about as much in common with New Mexico as I do with Mexico. The difference is, New Mexico is “united” with me under the federal government - even at my expense. You needn’t agree, but this is why I think single-payer healthcare is a legitimate function for the federal government to assume. Problems that are national in scope should be addressed at the national level. In my opinion, Canada’s system has succeeded in doing things that ours has not, namely, separating healthcare from employment and covering all citizens.

I do not wish to provide healthcare with other people’s money without their consent. I would like to see the matter voted on. And, if it were implemented, I would like to see our collective tax dollars used for this purpose.

 

[Cricket123]

"Decent morality is long gone. It was completely destroyed in little more than two generations — through public welfare benefits and the concept of welfare rights.

"From the perspective of a bystander (as I consider myself) this madness all makes sense — teaching people they do not need to worry about the consequences of their actions makes willingly dependent subjects. The welfare state has created the egotistical monsters it claims to save us from — through handing out privileges and benefits to everybody at “nobody’s” expense.

"The social engineers of the welfare state obviously never considered a possible change in morality and perception — they simply wanted a system guaranteeing security for everybody; a system where the able could and should work to support themselves, but where the unable too could live dignified lives. Who would have thought the progressive reforms to secure workers’ rights and prosperity for all in the early 20th century would backfire philosophically and morally?

"It can’t work.
This new morality is the obvious opposite of that of my grandparents’ generation. It is a morality claiming independence can only be achieved through handing over responsibility to others, and that freedom can only be attained through enslaving others (and oneself). The result of this degenerated morality on a social or societal level is a disaster economically, socially, psychologically, and philosophically.

"But this is also a personal tragedy for many thousands of Swedes. People seem unable to enjoy life without responsibility for one’s actions and choices, and it is impossible to feel pride and independence without having the means to control one’s life. The welfare state has created a dependent people utterly incapable of finding value in life; instead, they find themselves incapable of typical human feelings such as pride, honor, and empathy. These feelings, along with the means to create meaning to life, have been taken over by the welfare state.

“Perhaps this explains why such a large part of the young population now consumes antidepressant medication, without which they are unable to function normally in social situations. And presumably it explains why the number of suicides among very young people who never really knew their parents is increasing dramatically (the total number of suicides remaining about the same). Still people are totally unable to see the problem or find a solution. Like spoiled children, they call for “help” through the state.”

Interesting, but I do not see the evidence of moral decline here, beyond increased use of anti-depressants and a shift in the demographic of suicide. As far as antidepressants go, these were not in common use two generations ago, and they were not aggressively marketed until recently. Our grandparents did not use them because they did not exist. Alcohol was quite popular, though.

This also seems to clash with a recent Gallup poll showing Sweden to be among the “happiest of nations,” ninth out of 132 countries surveyed. Statistics are always to be questioned, but still…

 

[markbrumbaugh]

No, I think you are missing the point. You value your freedom more than you care abt the suffering of others. In the biblical text no one was harmed, the owners was free to choose, but he harmed no one.
It was either Yale or Harvard I forget which, who said that every year 45,000 Americans die because they did not have health insurance. Yet you are free to deny help to these people. That must make you feel good abt your freedom.
You can do good, but together you could do better.

You are missing the point. It is impossible to do good with stolen money. I’m not denying anyone health insurance. I do deny that it is anyone’s right to take whatever they want of mine and give it to someone they favor more highly.

 

[Monk21]

You are missing the point. It is impossible to do good with stolen money. I’m not denying anyone health insurance. I do deny that it is anyone’s right to take whatever they want of mine and give it to someone they favor more highly.

Who is favored more highly? Here in Canada, when it comes to health care, we are all equal in the service we receive.

 

[jimpres]

Who is favored more highly? Here in Canada, when it comes to health care, we are all equal in the service we receive.

I keep hearing on TV that if you have a problem that needs immediate attention many Canadians come to the US to get Health Care because of the wait time in Canada.
I would not call that service and if the US system were not here then what?

 

[Monk21]

I keep hearing on TV that if you have a problem that needs immediate attention many Canadians come to the US to get Health Care because of the wait time in Canada.
I would not call that service and if the US system were not here then what?

The Canadians who are sent to the US by their doctors are sent because it saves us from building or expanding services in some areas. These are still payed for by our health system.
If we could not do that because you were not there, then we would have to build our own. Right now it is a money saving idea.
The republicans picked up on this and tried to make it sound like we could not handle these cases. The truth is we let you handle them and our system pays for it.

 

[Geowitz]

Well, I would not say that I am automatically laying this responsibility in the federal government. I think that the market approach has been tried and has not worked. Leaving healthcare in the hands of private insurance companies, subsidized by both federal and state government, employers, employees, and private consumers has resulted in the current mess: millions uncovered, millions inadequately covered. Decisions are still made by a far-removed bureaucracy, just a private, for-profit one.

If you think you have seen a true market in your lifetime you are sorely mistaken. We haven’t had a true free enterprise system in atleast 100 years. The market approach has been perverted by crony capitalism and corporatism.

You wrote in an earlier post:

“It’s obivous you have a great deal of contempt for freedom, atleast for others to practice. Like I said before, admit it. You want the control to provide for those you deem disadvantged with other people’s money, but not their consent. I want freedom so those closest to the need can voluntarily provide thus shifting the focus back to our individual responsibilities to others.”

I don’t see how I am leaving you any less free than either of us is already. I would propose that single-payer healthcare be considered, debated, and voted on in the usual manner. It is not at all clear what the outcome of this would be.

Sure, propose single payer, with subsidiarity in mind - in your own local government or state. You keep ignoring your lack of application of this principle.

I am not concerned with how free I am relative to you or the current situation in the US. I’m concerned with how free I should be. Freedom and responsibility will bring much better answers to the problems we have than any government program. You also have a faulty premise that single payer is just something we can bring up in congress and vote on.

Our taxes are already used to provide for others without our, at least explicit, consent. Iraq was invaded without my consent; Wall Street was bailed out without my consent. That is the downside of a democratic republic.

I agree with you on all of these examples, but probably for much different reasons. We should not be fighting in Iraq or any other place we haven’t declared war on, much less rebuilding their infrastructure because they were ruled by a tyrant. Wall street was bailed out because of crony capitalism. Otherwise, in general when a tax is taken out for various welfare functions I consider that fine if it is on the state level, because the state has a right to do that. The federal government does not. Subsidiarity again…

Get it right though please. You loose a lot of credibility when you misstate what kind of government we have. We are a constitutional republic, but your misunderstanding of our government makes it easier for me to understand why your views are faulty.

Even so, as I see it, the purpose of the federal government is to provide the “United,” in United States. What does Massachusetts have in common with Louisiana, practically speaking, without some common notion of “America?” Why should I be concerned, beyond general human sentiment, if New Orleans washes into the sea? More so, why should I pay for it, if not for the notion of “America?”

United by the federal government through the powers granted to it. The states created the federal government, not the other way around. You shouldn’t pay for it atleast through taxes. State level legislation and volunteerism could perfectly take care of this. The problem is everyone assumes it’s the federal governments responsibility to take care of it so apathy reigns. One significant consideration in your example though is the question as to the wisdom of building a city practically under sea level.

 

[Geowitz]

Indulge me for a minute and look at these statistics.

Some states receive more in federal aid than they pay in federal tax; others pay more in tax than they receive in federal aid. In fact, 32 states are “recipient states,” 17 are “donor states.” In other words, 17 states are paying all the bills. Also, if you live in one of the top 32 states, in essence, you don’t pay any federal income tax at all. Your money comes right back to your state and then some. In some cases, it comes back doubled.

Yet 25 of these 32 states are hotbeds of anti-tax, small government Republican politics. I have relatives in South Carolina who are always happy that they have no state income tax. Yet the only reason they can afford to have no income tax is because Massachusetts, in essence, pays it for them. So why are they complaining about socialism, redistribution of wealth, or unjust taxation, when they are beneficiaries of these?

Seen the figures and know them all to well. Being in a system already set up to redistribute funds from state to state doesn’t mean you can’t complain about how it’s being run. This is blatant taxation without representation. Each state must live within its means. The problem in this situation is that once the money goes to Washington you have to beg for it back. SOme beg harder and that makes it unfair, unjust, and unequal. I would suggest that we make sure it doesn’t get there in the first place(except for only what it needs). These statistics only highlight the problem in the system and prove my point further. The solution is simple. If taxation without representation is happening, restrict the ability of the federal government to be involved in the first place. That was “kind of” the point of our constitutional republic. To restrict federal involvement so as to avoid the situation we are in now.

If anyone should be complaining about unjust taxation, it should be me. I don’t, though. Yet I’m often maligned as “unpatriotic” or “Northern liberal elite.” When New Orleans washes into the sea, the people closest to the need don’t pay for it; I pay for it. Red States keep taxes low because I make up the difference. It is both socialism and redistribution of wealth, but it is also a consequence of living in a large nation with disparate interests.

Those closest to the need no longer pay for it because it has been beaten into our heads that it’s the federal governments responsibility. Apathy reigns and we follow like drones. We are not one large nation. We are a union of states.

We already have measures of socialism and redistribution of wealth that directly and substantially benefit the people who are most opposed to it. I do not understand this.

I don’t understand it either and honestly it makes me sick. No one is imune to greed.

For all practical purposes, I have about as much in common with New Mexico as I do with Mexico. The difference is, New Mexico is “united” with me under the federal government - even at my expense. You needn’t agree, but this is why I think single-payer healthcare is a legitimate function for the federal government to assume. Problems that are national in scope should be addressed at the national level. In my opinion, Canada’s system has succeeded in doing things that ours has not, namely, separating healthcare from employment and covering all citizens.

I do not wish to provide healthcare with other people’s money without their consent. I would like to see the matter voted on. And, if it were implemented, I would like to see our collective tax dollars used for this purpose.

Whether you think it is a legitimate function or not is not a part of the debate. The constitution is clear as well as the principle of subsidiarity. You are mistaken in your premise that only the federal government has the capacity or even responsibility to provide healthcare for all. You must prove your premise first and foremost before you can even consider whether single payer is a good idea or not. Subsidiarity and your church demand justification, for very serious reasons, that this matter cannot be handled closer to the need. Prudential judgment based upon all principles must be used. I love these arguments because if I fall into your little trap and start talking about the benefits/pitfalls of nationalized healthcare we start arguing about how to implement a system, NOT whether it should be implemented in the first place. You can’t just skip over that. Instead of assuming your premise, you must frst prove it.

Socialism…ideas so great they have to be mandatory…