www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall health care system would cover abortions

If we get nationalized health care, it will give the government an even better excuse to force us into living healthier lifestyles, with the excuse of spending less money.

Healthier as in agenda-driven doctoring like the forced HPV vaccine, birth control pills for every female problem, abortions as solutions, and homosexuality being listed as a healthy psychological disposition which should be encouraged?

Just because other countries might "kill off the elderly" (by the way, can you substantiate this very serious accusation?), doesn't mean that we would have to do that here if we were to have national health care. Also, I don't see that you've offered any alternative for those millions of Americans who can't afford healthcare. To that group, these sort of slippery-slope protests about all the horrible things that will happen if we have national health care ring rather hollow. While I'm not directing this accusation at you personally, it seems to me that the real reason most people protest nationalized health care is that they don't care about the needs of those who can't afford access to it.

Wow.

Anyways, as someone who is having a very hard time financially and would benefit from using other peoples money to pay for my families health care, I object on the grounds:

A.) I don't think it is right to take other people's money by force to pay for my health bills.

B.) I don't want the government to become even larger than it already is.

C.) The costs of health care should be lowered by getting the govt completely out of health care, and insurance.

I can. I did a research paper for a advanced management level course on hospital administration in 1996. The Dutch, for example, have allowed physicians to automatically euthanizae those in nursing homes who linger longer than two years. As if that weren't enough, my next door neighbor had her elderly mother die quietly at home in Germany because she was afraid of the same thing and she told her daughter so. The neighbor says her mother was all but bedfast and had someone check in on her twice a week from the state health service rather than go to a nursing home. Other European countries with this universal health care system operate on the same pattern. This is the dirty little secret that the media does not report, as with so much else that is selectively reported.


I'm among those who have not had any health coverage for over 13 years. My situation is rather precarious, but it's not something that causes me to lose sleep. Catastrophic coverage is available for those serious illnesses that might destroy a family. However, that being said, there is no reason taht normal health coverage should include all the things that it has been stretched to cover. The earliest health coverage was just for hospital stays. It did not cover eyeglasses, dental care, chiropractic, hearing tests or aids, cosmetic surgery, ED meds, and all the other things that people ordinarily paid for from their own resources. All these add-ons came about from the push of unions to have ever-more coverage as a benefit for their members. And taht snowballed into the general population coming to see these same things as customary and reasonable.

Another thing that has come to the surface in the ever-rising cost of healthcare is the idea that every small hospital in the country must have the same sophisticated machinery that used to be available only at major teaching hospitals. The cost of each machine is spread across the cost of every procedure and every aspirin that any patient uses. That's part of the reason it costs so much to go to a hospital. Add government regulations and inspections, insurance companies that try to force reductions for their members and you've got a general picture of why things cost so much.

Then there is the insurance company mess. When you allow companies to spend more of the premium dollar fighting legitimate claims than paying for the benefits that the money was intended for, you've got a formula for things costing way more than they should. An army of claims reps costs a lot of money and the attorneys paid to fight claims doesn't help either.

There is no easy answer, but the basic idea in this country that we pay our own way comes from the Reagan reforms of about 25 years ago. We don't have an unlimited amount of money in this country and with so many other projects being bankrolled to get politicians elected and re-elected there just isn't the money to pay everyone's healthcare bill. Much of the federal budget is already set in stone and there isn't enough room to wiggle.

Bob

I totally agree with Nathan !!! And I say that as someone who has no medical insurance and an unrepaired hernia (diagnosed last Oct) No one has an inalienable right to free medical treatment, but I'am proud of the history of the Roman Catholic Church in building hospitals around the world that were paid for by the private sector, where countless millions who couldn't pay were treated. Jesus said we would always have the poor, and the way to help them is through Christian charity and not State sponsored socialism.

Dear Friends, particular my fellow parishioner Nathan, and my new friend Lawrence:

I strongly disagree with some of my good friends who see no state role in securing the common good.

Education, healthcare, housing are human rights, not privileges. This is a fundamentally Christian notion, not necessarily a "liberal" or a "Marxist" one. Christians and other Americans do not understand even those most obvious moral values of the Gospel and Sacred Scripture that address our vocation to indeed be our brother's keeper.

Although there is nothing in the Bible or Holy Tradition to suggest the government must such is having a role in ensuring the general welfare and the common good, neither is there anything in the Bible and tradition to preclude it from doing so. Government cannot and should not do everything, and government's role does not preclude our own personal and private responses to human need and suffering. But for an ostensibly Christian nation, it is shameful and scandalous to have 47 million people uninsured, and of having 1 in 8 people live in poverty.

It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that one has a right to private property, but not an absolute right- the church also teaches the doctrine of the universal destination of goods, which in turn supports the common good.

Free Markets, capitalism and other economic mechanisms must be directed toward the common good. This teaching is ancient Christian doctrine, based squarely and firmly on the Gospel of Jesus, and the early Church fathers. Some of these Church fathers believe that anything surplus we have belongs by right to the poor, and to withold it from them is to steal.

Again, private charity is not here precluded; Christ our God taught that one cleanses the inside of their souls by giving alms (Luke 11:41).

My argument against Christian conservatives who do not believe in any state responsibility for the common good is that the kind of government we create reflects our values- and right now, our country is not reflecting as deep of a committment to Christian values in the socio-economic realm as some more ostensibly secular societies in Western Europe. I fail to see how some of us can compartementalize our brain into these separate secular and sacred; how we can be generous and caring in one arena of our lives, but support Social-Darwinism, greed, exploitation and selfishness in another realm, which is what happens when rapacious capitalism is not checked with fairness and a concern for the common good. It is philosophically inconsistent. We rank #37 in health care; the fact is, some other societies have better standards of living and health. We do not have to repeat their mistakes or adopt their poor morals in other arenas in order to establish the common good.

Nathan and Lawrence, I believe you do deserve assistance. I do not know your specific situations, but I assume you have worked hard and have paid taxes. Can't we help those who fall down? Lawrence, I think it is scandolous you do not have your condition treated. I repect your belief that your are not entitled to it, but I think it is a disgrace for a so called civil society.

My personal experience, since we are bringing those up-

Right now, I am without health care. I cannot get at the moment our MinnCare, because I had to exhaust my Cobra first, which I could not afford while I have been unemployed. I have diabetes and a heart condition. But I have believed what I lay out here for most of my life, including the 33 years I have worked hard (sometimes 2, and a couple of times even 3 jobs- even while full time in grad school- I am not a slacker) and have paid taxes. None of us three are free loaders, but hard working tax payers, who have taken care of our own families, supported the common good, and served in our churches.

My ex wife is literally dying because she did not have health insurance for two years. She contracted cancer, and now, she has only a few months to live. She is suffering terribly with chemo, leasions and sores, unable to eat well and keep anything down. Had she had health insurance, she would not have avoided cancer, but perhaps they could have caught it earlier, removed it, and she could have beat it or at least lived longer and healthier.

My commitment to Christ my God should be reflect in every area of my life, including the socio-economic-political realm. I say this as a Christian, a Byzantine Catholic, who owes his life and redemption to Jesus Christ, and seeks to pick up his cross every day and follow Jesus, and to base his life on God's revelation in Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition.

Best regards,

Lance

Wondering,

America ranks #37 in health care. I do not believe we have to "kill of the elderly" to have a good health care system. But let's learn from what works, and we can leave the aspects we do not like. Other countries are spending less per person annually but providing coverage to all, and good coverage for the most part.

Also, I respectfully question if there is wide spread killing of the elderly in these West-Euorpean social democracies. But I am sure you are refering to assisted suicide in Holland, which I also strongly oppose. I share your concerns, Wondering, about other social issues in Western Europe.

In fact, I am angry at the Democrats for making a big deal about stem cells right out the gate instead of addressing some of these lunch bucket issues which are far more important for the common good.

Great post Lance, even though I disagree, you laid out some good points.

I do not believe housing, education, and health care are rights that humans are born with. This does not mean I don't believe we should help our fellow man, on the contrary, as you pointed out it is our Christian duty to do so. We should encourage private Catholic Schools, Hospitals, and charities to provide for basic human needs. In the past, and present these private religious organization have proven to function much more efficiently then the government. These organizations are funded by good will and a sense of Christian duty, intstead of being forcefully extracted by the government.

As far as the government reflecting the values of the population, this is exactally what I don't want. I don't want the values and morals of the majority forced upon me. I want the government to get out of the way so the little man can succeed.

Right now I'm paying $176 per month in social security, and I'll never see a penny when I retire. The kicker is, this money could be going to some rich old lady who doesn't even need it! That's $2112 per year!

I believe in the goodness of people, and I believe if the government stops forcefully taking away money to redistribute, that the private charities will take it's place, and do and EVEN BETTER job of taking care of the citizens.

Wow, sorry, I got a little carried away, I think I heard "God Bless America" playing in the back of my head.

But, one more thing. I DO believe the system is broken. Sounds like a lot of us are struggling with the current health care system. Let's just pray that it gets fixed soon! We just differ on the solution to get it fixed.

God Bless!

Nathan "The Patriot"(lol)

PS I do NOT want to be associated with what many consider the Conservative Christians. I'm more of a libertarian.

Nathan:

Actually the biggest beneficiaries of the Socail Security system are the people who work in administering the money for those who receive it. Starting salaries for new hires last year was $37K. And that's while I'm working with elderly people who are struggling to make ends meat (pun intended) with under $1000.00 per month, many under $600.00 as their only income.


Have to agree with you here, though. Unfortunately, it seems that to fix it we'd have to settle in with the kinds of things you mention you disagree with: abortions, contraceptives for young people, etc.

BOB

Nathan

I respect your position, it is consistent. I am still a little puzzled why you would not want to reflect your values in the greater society, but I do understand the libertarian position, and respect it much more than the neo-cons and the Bush administration. I also appreciate people are wary about values in the public realm, because it might lead to church-state issues (either favoring the church or a particular church/deonomination, or marginalizing them).

I agree with C.S. Lewis, paraphrasing him, that a Christian society would look leftist (the term he used) in the socio-economic realm, but traditional in terms of family and morality. That is a vision I agree with. I would seek to blend some of the values of family social conservatives prize with progressive socio-economic agenda.

The term conservative- I do not like it either, but I do not like liberal either.

Most people would say I am a theological conservative, and a political-economic liberal, but I do not like either term. In the theological realm I would prefer "orthodox" to either conservative or traditionalist, and in the political realm, I would rather be called a "progressive" or "social democrat" than a liberal.

Both terms, liberal and conservative, carry baggage I do not like.

Blessings,

Lance

There is only one ultimate solution: we must reproduce and raise children who will vote for what is right while the far left aborts and contracepts itself out of existence.

Like Mr. Reagan used to say: "When the government comes to say 'We are here to help.' run away as fast as you can."

Someone has suggested that if we end private health insurance and replace it with National Health Care we have elimnated the middle man. That's not true. We have only replaced one middle man for another. We've replaced one that is relatively benign for one that is relatively malignant.

CDL

Carson:

I agree that if we end private health insurance and replace it with national health care, we are replacing one middle man with another. However, I disagree that private health insurance is relatively benign. Based on my experience in the health care industry, I have come to believe that the private health insurance industry more than any other factor drives up the costs of health care, is indifferent to the negative impacts its policies has on its clients (unless and until such actions lead either to lawsuites are government sanctions), and is thoroughly profit-driven, rather than driven by the goal of providing an essential service (what once was the primary motivating force not only for most medical practitioners, but for the industry as a whole).

Ryan

Nathan:

To those who are relatively wealthy and object to having their money used to help those less fortunate (and it's clear to me by reading your posts that you are not in this group-you have made it clear that you believe Christians have a duty to aid the poor), I offer this passage from St. John Chrysostom's Second Sermon on Lazarus and the rich man, as both guidance as to their responsibilities and a warning about the spiritual danger associated with indifference to the needs of the poor.

Ryan

And elsewhere the Scripture says, "Deprive not the poor of his living." To deprive is to take what belongs to another; for it is called deprivation when we take and keep what belongs to others. By this we are taught that when we do not show mercy, we will be punished just like those who steal. For our money is the Lord�s, however we may have gathered it. If we provide for those in need, we shall obtain great plenty. This is why God has allowed you to have more: not for you to waste on prostitutes, drink, fancy food, expensive clothes, and all the other kinds of indolence, but for you to distribute to those in need. Just as an official in the imperial treasury, if he neglects to distribute where he is ordered, but spends instead for his own indolence, pays the penalty and is put to death, so also the rich man is a kind of steward of the money which is owed for distribution to the poor. He is directed to distribute it to his fellow servants who are in want. So if he spends more on himself than his need requires, he will pay the harshest penalty hereafter. For his own goods are not his own, but belong to his fellow servants.

quoted from On Wealth and Poverty, translated by Catherine Roth, copyright 1984, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press