www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Q&A from US Bishops on Health Care Reform

And yet, no one on the Right is calling Obama a fascist. Nancy Pilosi is the one calling those who oppose her health care reform agenda as "fascist". The Right appears to simply be opposing socialism (and it certainly does fit the general definition of socialism, along with the reality of rationing).

I don't know if I agree with your Constitutional argument, but I think it would be better for these programs to be at a state or local level.

I wish we did not need any government aid programs, but alas we do. I'm not sure if the government didn't provide these aids if we, as individuals, would pick up the ball; I pray that we would, but I'm just not sure.

Under both Mussolini and Hitler (both men of the Left, by the way--see Jonah Goldberg's seminal Liberal Fascism), the state controlled the economy while leaving ownership in private hands. The government directed what was to be produced, who was to produce it, and to some extent, what it would cost to the consumer by heavily subsidizing production. Companies that were politically compliant got business; those that were deemed in opposition did not. No surprise the former thrived and many of the latter went under.

The policies in both Italy and Germany wedded big business to the state, making the former dependent on the good will of the latter. Much the same thing is occurring, on a smaller scale (for now) and with a slightly lighter touch. One need only look at the Obama Administration's handling of the financial sector, the automotive industry, the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry to see which way the wind is blowing.

Regarding the posters. I was referring to this (and ones like it):
[Linked Image]

and their resemblance to this (and others like it):
[Linked Image]

Yes. It has been proven over and over again.

Thomas Sowell is a writer who happens to be both conservative and black. He wrote once about when he was in school in Washington, DC growing up (I think either the 1930s or 1940s). He spoke about the problems of racism, and how the black schools were poorly kept, and how they had the 'hand-me-down' text books. Then he noted that while the test scores from the black schools were never as good as those for the white schools they were always just a point or two behind. Enter the federal government into education, and the growth of teachers unions (which moved from educational concerns to concern only about salary and power). He traces how test scores (and real education) got worse as control moved from the local level to the national level (via both government and unions).

It seems to me that the answer in education is to abolish the Department of Education. Let states coordinate educational standards together. Taxpayer funding of education (including colleges) has been shown to only succeed in raising the cost of education, and to have no effect on quality.

Such examples regarding government are abundant. And we see the same thing with health care, both with Medicare / Medicaid and with the fully socialized versions in other countries.

One must, of course, set attainable goals. I'd set a goal (for now) of certainly keeping our promise to the elderly but getting the government out of managing any health care. Outsource to competing companies. Let Blue Cross compete with Cigna for the health care business of the elder just as they do for the health care of others.

The Constitution lays out specific tasks for the federal government and leaves the rest to the States. The federal usurp of the authority Constitutionally retained by the States has been slow but sure. Best to return such power to the States. Someone living in Red Lodge, Montana should look to Helena for most of his government (where he can visit if need be) rather than to bureaucrats in Washington, DC.

I can agree that some would not participate in the voluntary funding of programs. But is there a moral right to compel them to? We can say "yes" for the things mandated by the Constitution (be it federal or State). But anything else? No. That does not make me cold-hearted, just someone who looks at things carefully and wishes to be very wise when spending money confiscated form others.

If there were a health emergency and you are far into the country you can morally justify breaking into someone's house (when they are not home) and using their phone to call 911. You can also justify using things from their medicine cabinet. But if there is no emergency can you justify such breaking and entering to use their phone to make a doctor appointment, or to 'borrow' an aspirin for a headache? No. Such would not be moral. Socialized medicine is parallel to this. The government should be able to morally justify every dollar it confiscates from every individuals.

I mentioned earlier about how some bishops are eager to foist off the obligation of taking care of the poor form the Church to the government. I think it is pretty clear that the examples of such we have seen in past generations has greatly damaged the Church. But that is another discussion!

I completely agree with you, I think anytime an organization, Churches included, are spending money either given to or taken by them, their needs to be moral and fisal accountability, we just differ on how that looks.

Many of us hold differing opinions here, but unless someone is hiding their Episcopal authority, none are able to speak authoritatively as to what constitutes right and wrong doing. Many Catholics, including many here, believe that US war on Iraq in morally justified. I would agree with His Grace Bishop John of Canton This returns to your statement that government must be able to morally justify all monies spent. But this is also another discussion.

Much as I love Bishop John Michael, he was most certainly exceeding his competency in making such a statement, which the Church has always left to the prudential judgment of the secular powers, except in cases where there is a manifest violation of moral teachings, which even the Holy See refused to do in the case of the Iraq war.

Agreed. And Bishop John of Canton's statement must be weighted against those of others. Pope John Paul II stated that the Iraqi war was just but even just wars should be avoided. Pope Benedict XVI (at the U.N.) spoke about how other nations have a moral obligation to intervene in nations who mistreat their people. One could legitimately take a position either for or against the Iraq War. I supported it (and continue to support the effort). But I know that if other countries had actually enforced the surrender from first Gulf War it would not have been necessary. [But guessing outcomes of 'what if' is not part of this discussion.]

Yes, we also agree that the Church must morally account for every dollar it receives.

And yes, although a bishop makes the final decision for his diocese he is not infallible, and the clergy and lay faithful have an obligation to challenge him should they think he mistaken.

I think the moral justification to confiscate money via taxes and give it to others for routine health care is a moral question that is legitimate to this discussion. Maybe it does belong in another thread.

John:

While I don't see the justification for a federal Department of Education (I generally believe in the need for a strong central government, but I also believe local communities and states are far better positioned to address educational needs), I wonder how many children, including nearly the entire student population where I'm a teacher, and many other children born to poor families, would receive any education without taxpayer funding.

Ryan

Ryan,

I understand all that. And yet the moral case for taking money from individuals by the force of taxes to serve another group still must be made. In this discussion we are speaking of forcing individuals to pay for the ordinary health care of their neighbors. A few generations no American would ask his neighbor to pay for his doctor appointment. In education we are speaking of taking that money to education people who might not get that education elsewhere. Still, we must first justify at the moral level the taking that money from people via taxes.

As Christians we would have an obligation to support certain tasks done by the Church. Feeding and clothing the poor (etc.) world be primary. One can perhaps justify education as an extension of that (feed the poor, then teach them to fish). But even in the Church such exceptions are always voluntary (even though tithing is tied to salvation it is a free choice). Can we say the same about the government? We agree by our Constitution to certain things. Health care and education are not listed as proper to the federal government. Such things are reserved to the States (but certainly not required at that or any level). We know that many of America's founding fathers were scandalized at the thought of taxpayer funded charity. I am making no conclusions here. I am arguing that the moral case must be made for every dollar taken by force through taxes, and how it is spent. [That, in addition to the general idea that even if we decide as a society to do such we ought to keep the federal government out of managing anything (her track record is abysmal) and, wherever possible, entrust the management of such things to the private sector (Blue Cross & Cigna are not perfect but the rates of waste and fraud are far lower since they answer to investors).]

Perhaps the golden rule for consideration here might be: "If you do not think it is proper to walk into your neighbor's house and take money from his purse to fund a particular function, you ought not to ask or expect the government to do the same."

Much here to consider!

John

John:

I don't wish to hijack a thread about health care reform. Perhaps a different thread would be in order.

I think that bringing an end to public education in this country would be disastrous (while acknowledging that there are a great many problems with public education). I believe that the benefits sociey derives from funding public education makes the taxation morally justifiable.

I also believe that bringing an end to public education would have the result of making our country more rigidly stratified, less economically mobile than it is. While I believe that children who are born into poor families are far more likely to grow up to be poor adults than are those children born to middle-class and wealthy parents, I also believe that this country provides more opportunites than many other countries for those who are born into poor families to move into the middle class, or perhaps even become wealthy. When my grandparents were able to move into the middle class sometime in the 50s or 60s, their lack of a high school education did not pose a barrier. Their willingness to work, their honesty, and their dependability was enough. However, today the lack of a high school education places huge barriers towards upward mobility through legitimate work. Virtually none of my students would receive an elementary education, much less a high school education, were we to abolish taxpayer funded education. In such a case, I suspect far more of them would resort to crime. For me, this alone is adequate justification for taxpayer funded public education.

However, I also believe that there are other justifications. I wonder how many people receive quality medical care from excellent physicians, dentists, nurses, pharmacists, etc., whose entire education took place in public schools. Also, what about the scientists, engineers, etc., who were educated in the public schools? What about the musicians, artists, and athletes who discovered their talents in public schools? I have no doubt about the moral justification of taxpayer supported public education.

Having said that, do I think taxpayers are justified when they ask for an accounting of how their funds are being used in the public schools, and do I think that taxpayers are right to expect better outcomes than the public schools often provide? Absolutely. As a matter of fact, one of my greatest frustrations as a teacher at a school where well over 90% of the student population is classified as economically disadvantaged, is that our students (together with the taxpayers who are paying for their education, as well as society as a whole), are not being served nearly as well as they should be, for a variety or reasons, many of which seem to me to be avoidable.

Sincerely,

Ryan

Ryan,

Thanks for the post. I'm not actually speaking about ending public education in this country, though I believe that the federal government should not be involved in education itself (beyond keeping the playing field level and maybe setting standards). I'm not necessarily speaking to ending government subsidies of education (but again, I would keep the feds out of it completely). We do know from college administrators that the federal subsidies in education have only lead to higher education costs. But, yes, that is another topic.

To refocus, the question I am raising is whether there are moral grounds to take money from your neighbor to pay for even good things. And the standard is the same for governments as well as individuals (a government doing it can make it legal but not moral). As I noted above, it would not be morally justifiable to demand that your neighbor pay for your annual physical or your tooth cleaning (or fillings). So why do some people think it is morally justifiable for the government to take money from you and your neighbor to pay for these things? One cannot use the Christian obligation to help the poor to justify it, as we are not speaking about the poor. And even if we are, there is nothing in Scripture or Holy Tradition to require Christians to support such things at the governmental level - such obligation falls not to the State but to the Church.

You spoke to education. Would it be fair to state your beliefs as follows (using the model I mentioned above): "I think it is moral to take money from my neighbor to finance public education." If that is what you are saying (and only you can tell us), I would disagree. Given the waste and fraud in the way tax money is spent other methods of funding education might actually be both more economical and produce better results.

As I look at the health care debate and see so many good people buy not just into socialism (something that just doesn't work) but also into the idea that Christianity morally requires us support socialism and big government I find myself looking especially at the moral questions. [And then there is the issue of where the more the government does for an individual the less that individual (over time) is capable to doing - something I think is also immoral.]

John

John:

How would you propose funding public education without resorting to taxation?

Ryan

Considering that public education has failed miserably in this country over the last fifty years, maybe we should ask why we even bother. And it is always good to remember just why public education became ubiquitous in this country in the first place (hint--it has something to do with all those laws that tried to suppress Catholic parochial schools), or how, after John Dewey, the schools became not a means of providing useful education, but places of ideological indoctrination.

But I digress. Education should be funded publicly, because it is a common good (like the military, the police and a handful of other very limited government functions). But that does not mean that the state should have a monopoly on publicly funded schools. That has only resulted in a large and inefficient bureaucracy which has done for learning what the postal system has done for mail delivery. Instead of taking tax money and giving it to the schools (which blow most of it on administrative overhead and other useless activities), we should attach the money to students directly, and allow their parents to use this money to provide education in a manner of their choosing (funding taking the form of vouchers or direct billing). Consider that in many places, school districts expend more than $10,000 per student, K-12 (in Fairfax County, its about $12,000; in the District, it may be as much as $18,000, but nobody knows because the accounting system is so poor); applied directly to students, this is enough to allow parents to send their children to most private schools, whether secular or religious. If the government chooses to run schools of its own, they would have to compete against these private alternatives. Competition is good--it reduces costs and improves the product (which ought to be well-educated children). There must be something to this private education stuff, because substantial numbers of public school teachers opt to send their kids to private school (including a majority of public school teachers in DC--and who can blame them?).

The rich have no problem in avoiding the failed public school system; they can afford to send their kids to private school. Middle class parents increasingly beggar themselves to do the same. The people caught out are the poor--whose children, for a variety of reasons, are the ones who need good education the most. Yet, as we have seen in the recent DC vouchers case, it is precisely the iron triangle of the teacher's unions, educational "professionals" and well-to-do liberal politicians who band together to ensure they don't get it. Their solution to the problem of public education is entirely self-serving: more hair of the dog (i.e., yet more spending on public education, which in turn means higher salaries for teachers and administrators (mainly the latter), more grant money for the ed schools, and more campaign contributions to friendly politicians from the teachers unions (as Al Shanker famously said, "When students pay union dues, that's when I'll start representing them).

Attaching funding to students and making it portable breaks the iron triangle and makes families responsible for educational choices. Of course, they might choose badly, but most parents want what is best for their children, and it is not as though they can blow their vouchers on cigarettes, booze and drugs.

The studies that have have compared spending and achievement in public schools have found a *negative* correlation . . . although I'd interpret that as spending *itself* is not productive, rather than counterproductive, and expect that the negative correlation comes from other aligned variables . . .

anyway . . .

While I wouldn't promote Pennsylvania government in general, they have a "Star Foundation" which grants a 90% credit against state business income tax for contributions, which are in turn used for scholarships for private schools (most of which are Catholic). I think the income level was $40k+$10k/dependent, so that with 4 kids, anyone less than $90k qualified for at least 20%. I had a student who paid $50 for the year for her child in kindergarten.

hawk