Yes to a Plan, No to this One
While I have never voted Democrat, have no Democratic sympathies or interest in joining their ranks, more and more I’ve become convinced the complaints about government interference on the part of the right are not over abortion, Obama, or an Orwellian future but about the preservation of a “pristine” conservatism and the thinning of wallets. This time Marx isn’t waging class warfare; the very capitalists are declaring it. And time and again conservatives raise the argument that public insurance violates Catholic Social Teaching.
My objections to the current Bill that passed the Congress and was signed into law by President Obama are based on sincere objections about the mechanics of the law. In particular I believe this plan will only benefit the already fat insurance companies, Big Pharma, fail in its goal to help the poor, and stifle any serious attempt to stop contraception, abortion, and other pro-life objectives. However, I should be clear that I do not oppose a plan rather I oppose this plan. Yet, some of my fellow distributists and Catholics oppose not only this plan but any plan at all.
The recent accusations leveled against the USCCB are deplorable. Bishops who unambiguously defend the unborn are labeled “socialists” or “traitors” by the conservative political establishment, which currently subsists in Catholic circles, for their support in favor of a public option of health insurance. They are attacked for representing the interests of the poor and for (allegedly) defying the social doctrine of the Church.
Does public insurance violate Catholic Social Doctrine? Perhaps John Paul II can clear it up for us. In Centesimus Annus he writes,
Government cannot solve all our problems. If the United States were to become the “Social Assistance State” criticized by Pope John Paul II in the same encyclical we should rightly stand against it. But it hasn’t. On the contrary this nation’s reputable past as a “Corporate Assistance State” climaxed with the recent financial bailout. So if, according to John Paul, the poor “depend on the assistance of the State”, what type of aid should they look forward to receiving?
According to the good Pope John XXIII:
Was the good Pope John a socialist? Was His Holiness betraying the Catholic faith?
The famed anti-Communist and Jesuit sociologist Fr. John F. Cronin provides the answer.
It is the conservatives who deplore those “controversial” aspects consistent with the traditional social doctrine of the Church and it is the progressives who will mistakenly applaud these comments as some sort of vindication for socialism.
If, as is supposed, a public program for health insurance infringes on CSD the claim is inconsistent with the impact the social encyclicals generated in nations which, in addition to public insurance, offer socialized medicine where the majority faithful is Catholic. Even in Malta, Apostolic See and perhaps one of the last bastions of Christendom, socialized medicine lives harmoniously alongside private medicine. Is it a coincidence that, while critiquing largesse government, none of the bishops of these nations have ever objected to socialized medicine, which according to conservatives conflicts with the doctrine of the Church?
Government funding for programs such as social insurance should be garnished primarily from the private sector. Fr. Joseph Husslein, in his book Work, Wealth and Wages reiterates how, for the employer, insurance should be seen as the cost of doing business:
Vocal opponents of social insurance often claim that social justice is synonymous with “Socialism”. More often than not, a finger is pointed in the direction of prevailing unorthodox expressions of social justice, exemplified by groups which have more in common with Karl Marx than with Leo XIII. The debate over the so-called incompatibility between religious orthodoxy and social justice has recently resurfaced on a segment of the Fox Network show Glenn Beck. And yet, in Msgr. John A. Ryan’s 1921 book, A Catechism of the Social Question he answers this very issue.
Should we remain unconvinced that a public option is in accord with CSD, shouldn’t we study whether remnant rulers of a declining Christendom introduced similar legislation in their respective countries? According to the pro-capitalist and conservative journal Libertad Digital, “…[in Spain] with the established Law of 1963 passed by Francisco Franco, we can truly speak of an authentic Social Security as we know it today.” It was perceived that through social benefits, “the workers participate in the investment of the nation…which belongs to them not just for the sake of solidarity, but justice”. In Austria, under Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss, “Only five days after the ceremony celebrating the official founding of the chamber, Dollfuss put forward the draft of a bill to create a national system of obligatory social insurance for all Austrians working in agriculture: peasants, their wives and children, as well as their employees.”
Public insurance, in principle, either violates Catholic Social Doctrine or it doesn’t. Should a public option of health insurance be consistent with our faith in most countries and a breach of it in ours, the inconsistency in the Church’s doctrine can only be labeled as schizophrenic. Should institutionalized public insurance defy Catholic Social Doctrine all around, a serious dilemma is present of immense magnitude.
(Nota bene: this is not non sequitur. An implementation of public insurance is based on prudential judgment. I am not insisting all nations must provide their citizens public insurance. Neither do I claim one must vote in favor of social insurance when it violates “non-negotiables”. I am simply submitting to the evidence that social insurance - in principle - does not per se violate CSD. On the other hand, some Catholics are claiming that public insurance does violate the principles of the social encyclicals.)
Public insurance is not a violation of Catholic Social Doctrine. It isn’t socialism. It isn’t government overstepping its bounds and interfering where it shouldn’t. Given this, is it possible public insurance may not be a Catholic predicament after all but rather a conservative one? Is it possible that public insurance is a challenge to American “rugged individualism”?
My objections to the current Bill that passed the Congress and was signed into law by President Obama are based on sincere objections about the mechanics of the law. In particular I believe this plan will only benefit the already fat insurance companies, Big Pharma, fail in its goal to help the poor, and stifle any serious attempt to stop contraception, abortion, and other pro-life objectives. However, I should be clear that I do not oppose a plan rather I oppose this plan. Yet, some of my fellow distributists and Catholics oppose not only this plan but any plan at all.
The recent accusations leveled against the USCCB are deplorable. Bishops who unambiguously defend the unborn are labeled “socialists” or “traitors” by the conservative political establishment, which currently subsists in Catholic circles, for their support in favor of a public option of health insurance. They are attacked for representing the interests of the poor and for (allegedly) defying the social doctrine of the Church.
Does public insurance violate Catholic Social Doctrine? Perhaps John Paul II can clear it up for us. In Centesimus Annus he writes,
“When there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the defenseless and the poor have a claim to special consideration. The richer class has many ways of shielding itself, and stands less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back on, and must chiefly depend on the assistance of the State. It is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong to the latter class, should be specially cared for and protected by the Government." (§33. Emphasis Mine)
Government cannot solve all our problems. If the United States were to become the “Social Assistance State” criticized by Pope John Paul II in the same encyclical we should rightly stand against it. But it hasn’t. On the contrary this nation’s reputable past as a “Corporate Assistance State” climaxed with the recent financial bailout. So if, according to John Paul, the poor “depend on the assistance of the State”, what type of aid should they look forward to receiving?
According to the good Pope John XXIII:
“Systems of social insurance and social security can make a most effective contribution to the overall distribution of national income in accordance with the principles of justice and equity. They can therefore be instrumental in reducing imbalances between the different classes of citizens.” – (Mater et Magistra §136. Emphasis mine.)
Was the good Pope John a socialist? Was His Holiness betraying the Catholic faith?
The famed anti-Communist and Jesuit sociologist Fr. John F. Cronin provides the answer.
“In effect, this statement is an approval of the redistribution of wealth through social welfare programs. It considers acceptable the aim of seeking to narrow extremes in standards of living in a country. Conservatives generally do not favor governmental measures of such sweeping scope. They prefer to emphasize programs for economic growth and increased efficiency as the preferable methods for raising the living standards of a nation.” (Christianity and Social Progress: A Commentary on Mater et Magistra)
It is the conservatives who deplore those “controversial” aspects consistent with the traditional social doctrine of the Church and it is the progressives who will mistakenly applaud these comments as some sort of vindication for socialism.
If, as is supposed, a public program for health insurance infringes on CSD the claim is inconsistent with the impact the social encyclicals generated in nations which, in addition to public insurance, offer socialized medicine where the majority faithful is Catholic. Even in Malta, Apostolic See and perhaps one of the last bastions of Christendom, socialized medicine lives harmoniously alongside private medicine. Is it a coincidence that, while critiquing largesse government, none of the bishops of these nations have ever objected to socialized medicine, which according to conservatives conflicts with the doctrine of the Church?
Government funding for programs such as social insurance should be garnished primarily from the private sector. Fr. Joseph Husslein, in his book Work, Wealth and Wages reiterates how, for the employer, insurance should be seen as the cost of doing business:
“Social insurance against sickness, invalidity, unemployment and old age is therefore to be favored and legally promoted…[I]f social insurance is needed it should, as far as possible, be levied on the industry.”
Vocal opponents of social insurance often claim that social justice is synonymous with “Socialism”. More often than not, a finger is pointed in the direction of prevailing unorthodox expressions of social justice, exemplified by groups which have more in common with Karl Marx than with Leo XIII. The debate over the so-called incompatibility between religious orthodoxy and social justice has recently resurfaced on a segment of the Fox Network show Glenn Beck. And yet, in Msgr. John A. Ryan’s 1921 book, A Catechism of the Social Question he answers this very issue.
Q. 7. Is every legislative proposal called "Socialistic" condemned by the Church?
A. “To call a proposal Socialistic does not make it Socialism. Socialism is common ownership and management of substantially all the means of production. For the government to own a few industries and manage them is not Socialism; for the men in an industry to own it and manage it cooperatively under one form or another is not Socialism; for the government to own a few industries and the men in the industry either alone or with the assistance of the government to manage those industries is not Socialism. Workmen's compensation acts and social insurance laws are not Socialism.”
Should we remain unconvinced that a public option is in accord with CSD, shouldn’t we study whether remnant rulers of a declining Christendom introduced similar legislation in their respective countries? According to the pro-capitalist and conservative journal Libertad Digital, “…[in Spain] with the established Law of 1963 passed by Francisco Franco, we can truly speak of an authentic Social Security as we know it today.” It was perceived that through social benefits, “the workers participate in the investment of the nation…which belongs to them not just for the sake of solidarity, but justice”. In Austria, under Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss, “Only five days after the ceremony celebrating the official founding of the chamber, Dollfuss put forward the draft of a bill to create a national system of obligatory social insurance for all Austrians working in agriculture: peasants, their wives and children, as well as their employees.”
Public insurance, in principle, either violates Catholic Social Doctrine or it doesn’t. Should a public option of health insurance be consistent with our faith in most countries and a breach of it in ours, the inconsistency in the Church’s doctrine can only be labeled as schizophrenic. Should institutionalized public insurance defy Catholic Social Doctrine all around, a serious dilemma is present of immense magnitude.
(Nota bene: this is not non sequitur. An implementation of public insurance is based on prudential judgment. I am not insisting all nations must provide their citizens public insurance. Neither do I claim one must vote in favor of social insurance when it violates “non-negotiables”. I am simply submitting to the evidence that social insurance - in principle - does not per se violate CSD. On the other hand, some Catholics are claiming that public insurance does violate the principles of the social encyclicals.)
Public insurance is not a violation of Catholic Social Doctrine. It isn’t socialism. It isn’t government overstepping its bounds and interfering where it shouldn’t. Given this, is it possible public insurance may not be a Catholic predicament after all but rather a conservative one? Is it possible that public insurance is a challenge to American “rugged individualism”?
46 comments:
Good post, Mr. Aleman. The world “socialism” gets thrown around a lot, but most people never bother to define it. I don’t think New Deal progressivism or European-style social democracy are really examples of state socialism, although I suppose they lean further towards state socialism than laissez-faire capitalism does, they are still forms of capitalism, at least in my mind.
Furthermore, even among ideas explicitly sporting the moniker “socialism” there are some big differences. For example, guild socialism is much closer to distributism than to the kind of state socialism that existed in the Soviet Union and its satellites. Yet, the two systems share the name “socialism.”
It's good thing the Magisterium isn't populated with "conservatives"... Could lead to a lot of confusion :o)
Nice post, Richard. Thanks for your clear thinking on this.
"Is it possible that public insurance is a challenge to American “rugged individualism”?"
To answer your question – yes, I believe that is a part of it, but that is not my objection. For the record of this post I'll restate my objection to a "state run/administered" health care system, that being that it would, if not immediately, eventually be conducted under fully under the secular dictates of "best practices" that would most assuredly lead to paying for contraception, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, and the complete loss of conscience protections for health care workers. It’s the “golden rule” – them that has the gold, makes the rules.
I am not advocating a system of "rugged individualism", I am advocating a separate CATHOLIC health care system that operates within ALL of the Church teachings.
The capitulation of the CHA and the radical nuns was resoundingly condemned for their support of THIS health care plan, despite its being condemned by "the bishops" (USCCB) was a scandal. That brings up a host of other issues, but is one that is tied to the vision for "Catholic" health care overall.
There are other Catholic organizations that have spoken about these issues that get NO press or attention because they are not aligned with the "progressive" causes like the National Catholic Distorter or “Catholics” for a Free Choice. They are the Catholic Medical Association who is advocating a guild system
http://www.cathmed.org/about/local_guilds/
and The National Catholic Bioethics Center
http://www.ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=183
I am not calling for "rugged individualism" I am calling for Catholic Solidarity to step up to the plate and show some leadership by developing a truly Catholic alternative to a government system with a not so hidden agenda. I do know any Catholic position on health care needs to consider all of Catholic teaching and I do have a quote for that:
“Two further documents by Paul VI without any direct link to social doctrine — the Encyclical Humanae Vitae (25 July 1968) and the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi (8 December 1975) — are highly important for delineating the fully human meaning of the development that the Church proposes. It is therefore helpful to consider these texts too in relation to Populorum Progressio. (Caritas in Veritate #15)
I would add Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) to the above as well.
If there were the leadership and more importantly the will, Catholics could develop and sell their own insurance product like the Knights of Columbus does now with life insurance. Each diocese could easily take the money they are wasting on the CCHD and establish a series of LOCAL non-profit clinics like this one in Virginia that charge based on ability to pay:
http://www.tepeyacfamilycenter.com/
instead of the government shuffling them off to planned parenthood
http://www.lifenews.com/nat6231.html
Ultimately I don’t see health care as a “national” but rather a local problem, which prices are being inflated primarily due to the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve, and massive fraud waste and abuse in the Medicare/Medicaid systems. It you want to fix the HC at its “root” – that would be my suggested starting place as the purchasing power of the dollar has gone from a dollar to about three cents since the creation of the Fed.
Excellent post. One finds oneself disagreeing both with the bill and with the opponents of the bill, which makes one a pretty disagreeable fellow. I do believe that every citizen should have access to health care as a "common good" rather than a market good. But this bill won't accomplish that; it will mainly enrich the insurance companies, as you said. Good idea, poor execution. Too bad that the debate hardly ever got near the real issues.
I wonder if the best option for universal healthcare ought to be based upon a guild system? Surely every family and individual could be cared for in such a case? And based more upon social bonds and real communities etc?
Louise, for a guild-based health care system, see http://distributism.blogspot.com/2009/04/chapter-xvii-distributism-and-health.html
[USCCB’s] LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND CORRESPONDING EXECUTIVE ORDER REGARDING ABORTION FUNDING AND CONSCIENCE PROTECTION
I. PPACA Violates Both Principles of the Hyde Amendment, and the Accompanying Executive Order Does Not Correct Those Problems
A. PPACA’s Direct Federal Funding of Abortion
B. PPACA’s Federal Funding of Plans That Cover Abortion
C. The Executive Order Cannot Fix TPPACA’s Abortion Funding Problems
D. The Executive Order Does Not Purport to Fix PPACA’s Abortion Funding Problems
II. PPACA Omits Key Conscience Protections, and the Accompanying Executive Order Does Not Correct That Problem
A. Conscience Protections Missing from PPACA
B. The Executive Order Only Describes Conscience Protections Apart from PPACA That Are Not Repealed and the Insufficient Protections Within PPACA
C. The Executive Order Could Have Enhanced Some Conscience Protections but Did Not Do So
III. Conclusion
In sum, the Executive Order cannot and does not fix the statutory problems of direct funding of abortion at CHCs, and of funding insurance plans that cover abortions; it cannot and does not make up for the absence of conscience protections that are missing from the statute; and it does not strengthen the conscience protections that are there, though it could have in certain limited ways. Where the Order purports to fix a shortcoming of the Act in these areas, it is highly likely to be legally invalid; and where the Order is highly likely to be legally valid, it does nothing to fix those shortcomings.
Thus, the shortcomings of the Act remain, and correspondingly, the need for fixes remains. Only Congress, with the consent of the President, has the legal authority to make those fixes. Congress and the President should act promptly to do so; they should not await courts’ likely invalidation of the few provisions of the Executive Order that even purport to be fixes.
http://www.usccb.org/healthcare/03-25-10Memo-re-Executive-Order-Final.pdf
Two wrongs don't make a right and the silence on these issues from distributist corners is deafening.
Also see:
"Catholic Social Teachings: Are the Bishops Fishing, Or Not?"
http://tinyurl.com/yycr8r3
Jim B. - What "silence from distributist corners?" This post and most of the comments make it clear that distributists find deplorable the bill's failure to include the kinds of protection that prolifers were insisting upon. The question being discussed here is whether or not the concept of national health insurance, per se, is somehow opposed to Catholic social teaching. This is a fair question judging by some of the commentary coming from conservatives and Mr. Aleman's analysis is right on target. Ask yourself, had Stupak and company not caved, and had the bill really included the kind of universal coverage the bishops called for, would conservatives have supported it? Not bloody likely I should think.As usual, one suspects the prolife issue was being manipulated by those opposed to the bill on other grounds.
Unfortunately the debate ended up being about providing universal health insurance and not universal access to health care. There are many ways to provide universal access to health care. Having the taxpayers foot the bill for everyone, while not against Catholic social teaching is not necessarily the best way. In fact, it seems this bill will do more to limit real access to healthcare. That's what makes it a bad piece of legisaltion.
Excellent post. One finds oneself disagreeing both with the bill and with the opponents of the bill, which makes one a pretty disagreeable fellow.
Hilarious!
Thank God for Richard Aleman and the "radical nuns"!
Expecting more out of this bill than the usual profits for the "health care industry" without first winning a people-friendlier Capitalism, seems to be expecting too much. But as the "radical nuns" point out, at least 30 million poor people will now have health insurance. And, there is this small step to build on.
http://practicaldistributism.blogspot.com/2010/03/distributism-and-obamacare.html
Socialism is not the only thing that is incompatible with Catholic social teaching. That teaching also includes the principle of subsidiarity; which states that higher levels of government must not act in areas that can be handled by the lower levels. While some changes at the federal level were necessary to address the problems, this health insurance bill (it isn't about health care at all, but about how to finance it) goes far beyond those things and is a violation of the principle of subsidiarity because many of the problems that are being addressed can be handled by lower levels of government and even private action.
Therefore it is a violation of Catholic social teaching.
Finally, the provision of the bill are clearly designed to drive private insurance out of business by fining its use. If the private insurance is driven out of business and replaced with government run insurance, the result is socialized health insurance. That alone does not constitute socialism, but it is a necessary step on the road there.
Nevertheless, it is definitely a further establishment of the Servile State; which is not compatible with Catholic social teaching.
On the topic of health care reform, I would also mention that reforming health insurance probably won't be enough to solve the health care crisis. Another problem is that the actual physical health care infrastructure has declined since the 1970s. In the 1970s we had close to 7,000 community hospitals, now the number is less than 5,000. In many rural areas, people must drive across several counties just to get basic medical care. Any plan to fix the U.S. health care system must include a plan to rebuild the nation's actual health care infrastructure.
David C,
I agree with you.
I think Rich raises a number of important points. I think the knee-jerk tendency on the part of some conservatives to label every government initiative as socialism is misguided.
That said, I believe the healthy instincts of the American people are what motivated their opposition to this bill.
This is a government that routinely and habitually violates the principle of subsidiarity in many areas, especially in education. I fear that more government involvement in health care will make health care institutions perform as abysmally as the schools do.
This is a policy that will place great burdens on local state governments to meet expanding Medicaid rolls. It could cause bankruptcy in any number of states not long after going into effect.
I think local solutions and alternative solutions weren't given a fair hearing. I think the country is polarized between people who believe that government is the only answer to any given problem, and people who believe that government is the cause of any given problem. The way things are right now, I'm more inclined to agree with the latter. That said, this attitude has also fostered despair in even the ability of local institutions to address social problems.
In my view, distributists ought to stand with the local. I think we should resist federal takeovers, because this federal government is run by men who amoral.
In principle, sure - a Catholic state along the lines of one outlined in Immortale Dei would be fantastic.
We don't live in that world. Leftist radicals, abortion fanatics, and globalists run the government. They shouldn't be in charge of anything. So I support the states initiatives against this rotten bill.
The states are already bankrupt from Bigness, Free Traitorism and Unjust War.
Capitalists run the Government. Capitalists run the Health Care "Industry". Capitalists run the Media, Capitalists have created the underclass and Capitalists want us to hate the Poor even to the point of letting them die because of no or sub-standard health care.
Bravo to those Catholics who see the good in insuring 30 million more of the Poor. We gotta start somewhere.
Tom,
I can't say "bravo" to people short-sighted enough to give the left-wing pro-abortion globalist government more power over our lives in exchange for a system that will probably end up doing more harm than good.
Dear Joe,
I agree with you that the central government has a poor track record on life, its sweeping “takeover” of education (although like John, I too valued my G.I. Bill), and I too have every concern for the enlarging scope of the central government. I think you have fairly assessed my post. I also agree there are local solutions which we must give preference to whether we live in an amoral state or not.
However, the reason for my posting the distinction between differences with this plan and my resolve over public insurance in accord with CSD is precisely because I disagree that the “healthy instincts of the American people are what motivated their opposition to this bill”. Yes, some of the American people are reacting to the natural (and historic) inclination towards the smaller body of authority or component of industry. Absolutely true. However, some in opposition object to government interference (of any kind or size), and equate any form of public assistance with Marxism. There exists (in some circles, not all) a materialist perception of man, of contempt for the poor as lazy and unproductive. This is not exclusive to secularists but is even popular amongst some Catholics of the conservative flavor. I have witnessed some of the protests in my local communities, have discussed the matter with Catholics in my town, and I identify a philosophy which claims that ANY PLAN, even a local initiative – unless it is created by charity, is an abuse of power. It is as if Catholics (and so-called conservatives) have succumbed to individualism. They claim to support subsidiarity, but what they mean exclusively is individual initiative.
We have become Cain who callously asks God whether or not he is his brother’s keeper. Charity, while tremdously important is not the same as justice.
I am reminded of Quadragesimo Anno:
Quite agreeable, of course, was this state of things to those who thought it in their abundant riches the result of inevitable economic laws and accordingly, as if it were for charity to veil the violation of justice which lawmakers not only tolerated but at times sanctioned, wanted the whole care of supporting the poor committed to charity alone. (§4)
I am not only concerned about the present but I keep my eye open for tomorrow (not to say you do not). Sure, we do live in a corrupt society, but I cannot, as some wish me to, praise an error and condemn the truth.
Dear Mr. Cooney,
I agree with most of what you’ve said. However, there are a few items I wish to review.
You’ve said:
While some changes at the federal level were necessary to address the problems, this health insurance bill (it isn't about health care at all, but about how to finance it) goes far beyond those things and is a violation of the principle of subsidiarity because many of the problems that are being addressed can be handled by lower levels of government and even private action.
You are entirely correct that this bill is about financing healthcare, not providing it. You are also right in noting how some changes were required at the central level. After all, subsidiarity implies smaller forms of authority must find recourse in larger bodies when problems are beyond their competency.
The question, which I think is definitely debatable, is whether private action or lower levels of government are presently equipped to handle the burdens of healthcare costs, and whether it is or isn’t legitimate for the Federal government to at least provisionally address this problem. Of course, I think this bill creates an unfair burden on individual states, which is why I wonder whether local government is capable and willing to even try an alternative, given that Massachusetts is (correct me if I am wrong) the only territory to tackle public insurance. So what happened to the past 10+ years since HilaryCare, given that at the time we were “in the money”? What has local government been waiting for? (blue and red states)
Lastly, I question whether the pontiffs I quoted were advocating for public assistance in light of subsidiarity especially given some of the comments I mentioned in my post. No doubt many nations (half a century ago) were more Catholic than they presently are, yet their respective recorded social policies – at least in their infancy – were not denounced as violating subsidiarity or CSD in general. I believe that the “Social Assistance State” was a reaction by Pope John Paul II to the direction these nations had taken which, towards the end of the century, bloated government into the Welfare State.
Personally, it is my desire to rid ourselves of both parties, push for a return to the great Catholic hospitals, and the smalltown doctors.
Rich,
Certainly I would disagree with those claiming to be conservatives who embraced individualism to the point of rejecting even local and state-level initiatives.
Conservatism does not - or is not supposed to, at any rate - equal individualism, one of the "twin rocks of shipwreck" that Pius XI spoke of in QA.
But we can't forget that Pius' denunciation of individualism was accompanied by an equally strong condemnation not only of collectivism in the abstract, but also of the idea that the state could take over and supplant private industry, to serve as an economic dictator, as Obama clearly wishes it to do.
Rather Pius - like all of the popes since Leo XIII - called for the development of a sector outside of the market and the state.
The bottom line is this, however: neither CST, nor the US Constitution (to which we are bound to be faithful lest, per Acts 5:29, we are commanded to violate God's laws) is a bankruptcy pact or a suicide pact.
I think many of the American people understood the financial risks and burdens of this bill, and rightfully rejected the idea that a finite resource can also be a good/service to which all people have an equal and unrestricted right. CST doesn't mandate such an irrational position.
Now one can certainly argue that Obamacare or some other federal plan wouldn't have that effect. And that's fine. But anyone who argues that we must make a massive financial commitment to a program that the nation cannot afford has no right to condemn in the name of CST, in my opinion.
On a final note, the failure of Massachusetts' own plan may be the reason why many other states haven't gone as far; that and the existence of Medicaid, which is a means-tested "public assistance" program that already places financial burdens on the states, as well as the fact that anyone can get care in an emergency room.
I have further thoughts as to why this plan will not work, and why no plan will probably work in this country in the near future. But I'll leave it there.
Are these points everyone would agree with?
1) Public financing of health care in acceptable with regards to Catholic Social Teaching, but is not a requirement.
2) Subsidiarity is a principle of CST and the US Constitution.
3) Public financing of health care goes against the American principle of limiting the power and scope of government.
And one final point, individualism is a hallmark of libertarianism, not conservatism (the two are often confused.
But we can't forget that Pius' denunciation of individualism was accompanied by an equally strong condemnation not only of collectivism in the abstract, but also of the idea that the state could take over and supplant private industry, to serve as an economic dictator, as Obama clearly wishes it to do.
Joe, I don’t disagree how dangerous collectivism or economic dictatorship in the hands of the State or private hands is, especially when the State is overrun by private interests (in the encyclical Pius refers to economic dictatorship four times, each of them in reference to private monopolists which have corrupted the Majesty of the State and these forces “must be effectively brought under public authority”).
Rather Pius - like all of the popes since Leo XIII - called for the development of a sector outside of the market and the state.
I believe we both agree that local, private associations and individuals outside both sectors can and have produced many good fruits. However, I would also refer back to the quotes of the post itself, where the pontiffs recognize the authority and specific intervention, even if provisionally, of the State to act. Again, I am not saying – as this has never been my contention – that right now, this minute, it must act. The State may find other solutions. I am however simply saying that it is in the central authority’s prerogative, its prudential judgment, whether to intervene at times or not (in defense of the common good) and this is in accord with CST.
I think many of the American people understood the financial risks and burdens of this bill, and rightfully rejected the idea that a finite resource can also be a good/service to which all people have an equal and unrestricted right. CST doesn't mandate such an irrational position.
I agree that many of the American people understood that as well. I don’t deny it. However, others begin with this argument and the conversation spirals down to what I previously asserted. “The poor are lazy, unproductive, it’s my money, etc.”
Now one can certainly argue that Obamacare or some other federal plan wouldn't have that effect. And that's fine. But anyone who argues that we must make a massive financial commitment to a program that the nation cannot afford has no right to condemn in the name of CST, in my opinion.
Where did I? I do believe there has been speculation regarding my post which, I am sad to say, had nothing to do with making said commitment nor was my post uncritical of this particular plan (I stated this from the beginning). It would be sweeping to say one would be against any plan at all without reading its contents, wouldn’t it? Unless one assumes that any plan at all violates CST (the point of my post).
Might (or popularity) does not make right, however after this post I am wondering if there is a way to reconcile the different perspectives between Catholics in Europe and America regarding CST. I recognize how a good can become an evil depending how, when, and where it is implemented. However, what I hoped to explore with this post is the moral principle, which we must admit is obviously sticky as when we (I mean the public) argue that a principle is morally right in one nation and a violation in another we have a serious dilemma.
Again, I agree there are other options, ones we must work toward to provide a distributist alternative
Rich,
" I am however simply saying that it is in the central authority’s prerogative, its prudential judgment, whether to intervene at times or not (in defense of the common good) and this is in accord with CST."
Here is the problem. I think it can be dangerous to speak of "the central authority's prerogative" in the abstract. It is most certainly its prerogative when it is a Christian state run by Christian men, or even in combination with non-Christians who recognize objective moral truth.
I question whether or not this applies to atheist regimes, which is virtually what we have today. At the least we can say that the Obama White House and the Democratic majorities are an atheist government. And that, to me, requires approaching social problems through CST from a different angle - for everything they do will be tainted with their atheism and their sexual perversion.
"I agree that many of the American people understood that as well. I don’t deny it."
Well, I thought you kinda did when you said that you disagreed with my assertion about the healthy instincts of the American people a few posts ago.
If I misunderstood, my apologies.
And while I certainly condemn any statement about "the poor being lazy" - it isn't wrong for people to assert that it is their money, their property, being infringed upon. This government does a lot of things with our money that are immoral.
And when we need that money to take care of our families, and are already in financial trouble due to the economic downturn, I'd say its a perfectly rational and legitimate thing to get angry about its diversion into a program that may well end up as a massive failure.
"Where did I?"
Like I said, perhaps I misunderstood you. You disagreed with my claim that the American people's healthy instincts is what motivates opposition to the bill.
That was their instinct (about the spending and bankruptcy), and if I didn't make that clear, that's my fault. Again, apologies for not clarifying.
On your final point, I don't think it is that sticky. Differences between nations and cultures are relevant. Especially when one of the nations is America, whose culture is as much defined by her ideological propositions and her Constitution as it is the other things that typically make up a culture.
Moral principles can take different forms in different cultures. Recognizing moral truth does not logically demand a uniform manifestation or implementation of that truth in all times and places. The content is objective; the form can vary.
In the US, people are right to oppose the federal usurpation of local prerogatives. This isn't a European nation-state, it is a federal republic, or at least it is supposed to be. The relations between the states and the federal government are supposed to be defined by certain rules. Attempts to usurp or overturn those rules without the consent of the people isn't morality, its tyranny.
Joe,
You note that the bill could destroy the states and Medicaid.But, long before this atrocious bills' passing, Medicaid was enlarged both by Bush and Obama and their allies.We now have people that apply for Medicaid that are working fullt ime and earning almost $2,000 a month!
I know, that is what I do all day long, handle medicaid disability cases (I used to do social security as well)..The mess started with the Federal Reserve, central banking and taxing to support it, now most money is sucked to Washington DC and everything is top-down.Our own Governor was not long ago in DC to beg for federal money.Distasteful.
Problem-you state we do not live in the world of Immortale Dei.True, but should we not be working toward that world? And instructing and motivating others to that world? It is an ideal to struggle towrd, is it not?
I agree that anything coming for DC is largely rotten, but Tom Laney is also right, that the states are corrupt too.Many, if not most, Governors now are part of the elite as well, Bush and the Terminator but 2 examples.
As t oyour observation of the Constitution and the alw-tue we are to obey the lasw of our nation, if and only if, though, they accord with God and is one and only Church…I would argue that Amendment 1 does not, hence that part is flawed. The state must recognize the Catholic Church alone as the Churh christ gave us and must accord it and only it, special protection.See Fr. Fahey's first 2 Points in his 6 point plan.
As to noting that Obama,et al are atheistic,etc..maybe so, in their philospophy, but calling them sexual perverts? Least we forget, it was Bush that apppointed openly gay men to high office, assistant secretary of Commerce I belevie and the Ambassador to Romania being 2 of them.Both times, their "partners" were in attendance and were demanded the privledges and rights accorded to spouses, I am specially noting the Romanian situation.
Also, I would agree that the Govt does a lot of immoral things with our money, for isntance, during 8 yrs of George "I love jesus he changed my heart" Bush, funding via Title X (unconstitutional) was increased and so too, monies sent to Planned Parenthood. Also, while we are on Bush, it is said both he and his dad have attended parties where male and female underage prostitution was going on.One instance is the Larry King/Boys town scandal, where underaged boys and girls were pimped out.It is said that the pedophile/homo group included the Bushes and other Dems and Repubs.
Your comemnts as follows:
"Differences between nations and cultures are relevant. Especially when one of the nations is America, whose culture is as much defined by her ideological propositions and her Constitution as it is the other things that typically make up a culture. "
Well, yes, different cultures,etc that is true..but so what? Are we not all to be in Christ and His Church? American culture is the product of largely Protestant, Deism and Enlightened fellows.Are we now siding with Novak when he argued that, basically, Rome should take a cue and learn from America? See John's article:
http://www.medaille.com/novak%20and%20capitalism.pdf.
part 2 response:
Again, most of Constitution is fine-4th amendment,etc, but again,not the ideal as it gives no Catholic preferences to the Church and no protections,etc.Further, you state:
"Moral principles can take different forms in different cultures. Recognizing moral truth does not logically demand a uniform manifestation or implementation of that truth in all times and places. The content is objective; the form can vary. "
Actually, no, there is but one moral truth, which is Christ and it is defined, promulgated and defended by His one true Church, the Catholic Church.Yes, moral truth is uniformed and it is manifested and implemented.Objective truth is objective, I fail to understand your last comment, what form? How? Where? Either abortion is immoral and hence, as it isi murder, illegal or it is not.Period. Government is then to enforce the laws God gives us against murder.Period.
You continue : "This isn't a European nation-state, it is a federal republic, or at least it is supposed to be."
Yes, the Constitution,etc defines the USA as a Republic.But why the slap against "European nation states"? If you mean the EU, I am with you against that monster product of the New World Order. But otherwise, what problems do you have with European states? Most are the product of 1789,1848,etc Freemasonic virtues.But, in part, so too is the USA.See : http://jcrao.freeshell.org/FoundingFathers and also, http://jcrao.freeshell.org/Capitalism.
I agree, that the principle should be local as possible, that we need to tear down the cnetralized, despotic, central banking mess we have, but Richard's article mainly states that the idea of a state health plan does not run counter to CST. He points out well that plan we have now and most proposed are terrible, that is true, but the idea is working well in Malta and other nations, not so good in many like Canada.
Could it work in the USA as it is now? No, but would it always be 100% wrong, likely not...that is the question.
Sorry for spelling errors, phone and work is picking up and interrupting a good discussion.typing fast, and spell checking little...mea culpa...
Chris,
"should we not be working toward that world?"
We should be working towards what we can accomplish. To work for the establishment of a confessional regime in the United States circa 2010 is irrational madness, in my opinion.
Not only that, it is entirely unnecessary. If we build the Kingdom of God in our local communities, then it will transform the nation. The reverse process, after 500 years of anti-Catholic revolutions, by which it is imposed by a government from above, is not going to happen.
Read Immortale Dei again if you doubt me; the concessions that Leo is willing to make in recognition of the difficult situation of the modern world would have to be considerably extended today.
It will take a lot more than decrees from a government that likely will never exist to fix our culture.
Your points about Bush are well taken and not disputed. He was a rather lackluster Christian, wasn't he? His "Christianity" was a pacifier. That said, what Bush did hypocritically, Obama does openly. One can admire his consistency, I suppose, but one also ought to be more frightened by it.
As you well know, I completely disagree with your simplistic whitewash of American history.
I also think you misunderstood my point about moral truth. Contemplate the difference between form and content, if you will. Contemplate why the Catholic Church has dozens of different rites (Latin, Maronite, Melkite, Coptic, Byzantine, etc.) Contemplate why Leo XIII reaffirmed that the Church objects to no form of government as long as it is governed by Christian principles, or why he never condemned the USA for its form of government.
The US is not Malta. Malta is a tiny island. The US is a nation of 300 million with a massive immigration problem, declining birth rates, and a public health crisis even among its children, who grow more obese and develop greater health problems every year.
If the US were Malta, or even Japan, where they have the highest life-expectancy in the world, it would be different. But the US is the US. It's not any other place. And so it is fallacious to compare it to other places as if it shared their essential characteristics.
Response part#1
Joe says:"We should be working towards what we can accomplish. To work for the establishment of a confessional regime in the United States circa 2010 is irrational madness, in my opinion. "
Comment-it is madenss to work for an ideal? Was it made that 11 scruffy guys and some women locked in an upper room were cahrged with spreading the Gospel? If I were Roman or Pro-Pharisee jew, I would likely say yes.No state would arise overnight, Joe and America has sunk so low that we can likely only go up, so why not try? Other than throwing in a towel and retreating to a dark closet if you will.
Joe says: "Not only that, it is entirely unnecessary. If we build the Kingdom of God in our local communities, then it will transform the nation"
Comment-I agree, wh osays we do not work in our communities? Not me.Sanctification and change starts with self, then family, then community and yes, eventually a nation.
Joe says "Read Immortale Dei again if you doubt me; the concessions that Leo is willing to make in recognition of the difficult situation of the modern world would have to be considerably extended today. "
Comment-have read it, yes he had to at times be pragmatic, like some nations you could not stop or supress non-Catholic worship, but not the ideal nor was he saying "hey, do what you want". Another point, Joe, is that you often will quote Leo XIII to "prove" he though ma, apple pie and the USA was great, but if we take not only his predecessors writings and those after him, but the whole body of his writings, he does not support the "rally around the US Constitution and flag " approach that is so festering Americanist Catholic thought today. When I have time and after my move is over, will try to expand on this thought a bit more.
Joe says: "It will take a lot more than decrees from a government that likely will never exist to fix our culture. "
Comment-I agree, the Govt is to support Catholic teaching and to assist in its promulgation-ie, not supporting abortion and punishing those that engage in it would be but one example. Again, no decrees will work if we do not first pray and roll up our sleeves.But merely saying "cant work" and "never will work in America" is limiting God. If we do our part, he will do His will and His will may just be to transform this nation…and ourselves..in the process.
response part #2
Joe says: "That said, what Bush did hypocritically, Obama does openly. One can admire his consistency, I suppose, but one also ought to be more frightened by it."
Comment-actually, not frightened at all, this was all predicted and a part of the Devil's end game.Plus, we by our blindness and apathy brought this mess on ourselves. Actually, I prefer to have openess.One thing that I recall saying when I was state Chair for the Constitution Party was that Hillary scared me a lot less then most GOP candidates.Why? Because she was open in her views and motives, there was no shenanigans and hiding anything.Bill was rather transparent, even when he strived to be otherwise.I prefer an Obama being up front and honest in his views, then being stroked and lied to, as we have been through the last decades by the GOP.Obama has scary views and plans, true, but at least we know openly the enemy and his plans.
Joe says: "As you well know, I completely disagree with your simplistic whitewash of American history."
Comment-well, yes I know you agree, though I do not feel it is simplistic as you think, I merely in a quick article or comments, hit on some general and main themes.Also, what is "whitewashing"? Describe that please. Was not Franklin the head of the PA Freemasons? Was he not a member of the Hellfire Club in England? Not openly a Freemason, rubbing shoulders w/Voltaire in France,etc? Was washington not the most well know Freemason in America? Just read their worn writings and those of their contemporaries.and Jefferson, Adams,etc,etc. Again, as Cardinal Pie observed-and I paraphrase-if the environment you live in is not Catholic, what you erect in the morning will be torn down in the evening.The nation is teraing down, Joe, how do you like it? I don’t and know you do not either. If you disagree with my history-and I made straights A's in school rarely cracking a book when it comes to history-that is fine.You on the other hand seem to have a simplistic Americanism.No, not trying to slander you in the least nor name call, but Americanism is a noxious disorder that has infected all parts of the Church in this nation.Believe, I used to be were you are. Let me reiterate, I mean you no ill will, no insult, I enjoy much of what you contribute to this site and others.I have no doubt you are a good man and sincere. But on some points, sincerely wrong. We can agree to disagree as two brothers in Christ.
Joe says: " Contemplate why Leo XIII reaffirmed that the Church objects to no form of government as long as it is governed by Christian principles, or why he never condemned the USA for its form of government. "
response part 3
Comment-both Leo XIII those previous and after him condemned freemasonry and liberliasm.This nation was largely built on Protestantism, which is condemned and the liberalism of the Enlightenment,etc.Just becaues Leo XIII did not specifically condemn America by name, you think this great anti-liberal pontiff was then fully supporting America.We are not debating forms of Govt, but the foundations and principles. As I have noted previously, he did say nice things about America, does not equal what you are saying, that America is some shinning city on a hill.Again, you are putting words in Leo's mouth.he did not support what you are saying, he was pragmatic, as he was about the French Republic, but does not = support.Yes, Leo did not say one form of Govt was better or worse, but he does not support liberalism.Governing a nation by Christian principles-now how do we do that? You seem to reject and throw out a Catholic state and seem not to even wantto consider it.But, were we not largely Christian in the 20's and 30"? Most people were, right? Then how do we explain widespread support for Eugenics in this nation by protestants? Even now, they have led charge along with others to knock down any laws against contraceptives and many support, openly, abortion.In 1973, we Catholics were largely alone in that fight.What if most again have a vote and decide that abortion is fine? Protestants tend to due that, go with fads and with majority votes.SO, then, how do we have a nation of "Chrisitan principles"? Based on whose? Armininas? Calvinists? Mormons? Who's principles then do we turn to? Have a vote ourselves? Also, as to my "whitewashing" noted earlier, take that up with John Rao and many, many other Catholics that have pointed out succintly the problems with the "American way of life".Rao does not seem to be a simpleton.
Joe says: "
The US is not Malta. Malta is a tiny island. The US is a nation of 300 million with a massive immigration problem, declining birth rates, and a public health crisis even among its children, who grow more obese and develop greater health problems every year.
If the US were Malta, or even Japan, where they have the highest life-expectancy in the world, it would be different. But the US is the US. It's not any other place. And so it is fallacious to compare it to other places as if it shared their essential characteristics."
Comment-yes, the size is different and that is a point I have argued with others, that a small nation like Malta and others normally does function better with a Govt health plan due to its homogenity, small size and stable growth rates. The point of Richard Aleman's article is that a govt plan, in and of itself, is not opposed to CST. He did not say it would be good for USA, nor the current plans.But a plan, in and of itself, is not a bad thing.
I know I cited of few of Dr.Rao's articles, this is a good one, if I have not already posted this.sorry again for mis-spellings.My fingers and mind do not always work together.
http://jcrao.freeshell.org/AmericanDream
found this, seems to contradict what Joe is ascribing to Leo XIII, unless conclude that Pius X somehow is opposed to Leo:
"We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker - the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be set up unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the new City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants." - Pope St. Pius X, Nostre charge apostolique.
Chris,
You've said a lot. I'll try to hit the main points.
"it is madenss to work for an ideal?"
No. It's madness to willfully pursue an irrational agenda. Catholics are not the majority. Faithful Catholics are a smaller minority. Faithful traditional Catholics whose views are comparable to Leo's are a handful.
"wh osays we do not work in our communities?"
I'm glad we agree. Worry about that first. Worry about what you can accomplish. Don't try to cram an entire dinner down your throat when you can barely chew and swallow the first bite.
"nor was he saying "hey, do what you want""
No one said he said that.
"he does not support the "rally around the US Constitution and flag "
We can't possibly know what he would support, since he's been dead for a century. But Pope Benedict spoke quite favorably of the US political system during his trip, as I've shown on numerous occasions.
" this was all predicted and a part of the Devil's end game."
If this is the end game, then how likely is it that we're going to change anything? Let's focus on what we can accomplish and do what God asks of us. Then we'll see what follows.
Regarding the founding, and particularly George Washington, I've already written enough about that. I'm not covering that ground again, except to point you (once again) to Longinqua by Leo and Sertum Laetitiae by Pius XII.
I will also remind you that the Catholic Church spread like wildfire in this supposedly evil, anti-Christian, anti-Catholic neo-pagan empire - tens of millions of Catholics, parishes, missions, universities, schools, media organizations, fraternities, social clubs, etc. etc.
Catholics hadn't had it as good since high Christendom. And it didn't turn to crap until perverted criminals such as Rembert Weakland overthrew Rome's authority at the local level and introduced their disgusting heresies and ugly aesthetics into the Church of their own accord.
The crisis of the Church is not an American crisis. It is a modernity crisis.
" I made straights A's in school rarely cracking a book when it comes to history"
Congratulations. Why would you tell me this as if it ought to make a difference?
"Rao does not seem to be a simpleton."
Appeals to authority bore me, Chris. There are realities, like the success of the Church in America, that don't logically follow from his (or your) premises. When your beliefs conflict with reality, it is the beliefs that ought to be altered - not your view of reality.
you said in your previous post,
"the idea is working well in Malta and other nations"
I was contesting the relevance of that. I was not contesting the relevance of this, which is in your last post in reply:
"a plan, in and of itself, is not a bad thing"
I didn't say it was. I said the fact that it "works in Malta" means nothing. I stand by it.
Finally, Pius X is not opposed to Leo. Pius X was speaking to the French bishops about a movement that was enamored with the radical ideas of the French Revolution, which was one of the most bloody anti-Catholic regimes in history.
The American Revolution is in no way comparable to the madness of the French. Catholics got the First Amendment in America; in France they got the Vendee.
Countries that take religion seriously persecute the Church and try to destroy it. The Vendee or the Gulag considers the Church something worthy of being hated and feared. The more enlightened modernism seeks to make the Church irrelevant, seeks to marginalize it. The first strategy waters the faith of the Church with the blood of the martyrs; the second condemns the Church to being another sect, another ideology, another irrelevance.
The Soviet Union espoused a Religious atheism; the late great America a practical atheism. In one, the Church was a force to be opposed; in the other, it was just another market choice.
Prof. Médaille,
Interesting comment. I hear and read the term "religious marketplace" a lot, and usually used in a favorable sense by religious folks (including some Catholics) to describe the positive impact of freedom of religion on a society.
I wonder though, is the commodification of religious belief a product of freedom of religion or of our economic system, or a bit of both? I would hope we could have freedom of religion without watering all religions down to the point where they are just ideologies.
Sorry to take the discussion off topic.
John,
I don't think you're seriously trying to equivocate the near extermination of the Catholic Church by radical revolutionaries from the Jacobins and the Bolsheviks to the rather slow and mostly freely-chosen, self-imposed decline of the American Catholic Church - but one might infer it.
"The Vendee or the Gulag considers the Church something worthy of being hated and feared."
Yes, but why is it relevant, why does it matter?
"In one, the Church was a force to be opposed; in the other, it was just another market choice."
And we still have the choice - I wouldn't call it a "market choice" - to turn back to it. No one in revolutionary France, Spain, Russia, etc. had that choice.
If we don't like it as a "choice", what would be better? Forced conversions? I'm not being flippant or offensive on purpose, but what are we supposed to conclude from the disparaging of Catholicism as a choice?
I've a question to ask here. The Vendee has been mentioned here, as apparently analogous to the Gulag. Yet when I checked the term on Wikipedia, they say it's a region in France where there was an anti-Republican revolt, that is, where a majority of people were still loyal to the Crown and Church. Does "Vendee" refer to the brutal means of suppression of the rebellion?
Viking
Viking,
More or less. It refers to an event during which anywhere between 120,000 and 450,000 Catholics were "religiously cleansed" from the Vendee region of France.
Joe,
Thank you for answering my question. So "Vendee" came to stand for the French revolutionaries' way of dealing with armed resistance? Were all these 120-450 Catholics killed or were some removed to concentration camps or their forebears?
Viking
Viking,
No, "Vendee" just refers to one event - the War in the Vendee region of France.
And yes, they were all killed. That is what I meant. They didn't have concentration camps in those days. They just killed them where they found them. This is what the commanding general said at the time:
"There is no more Vendée. It died with its wives and its children by our free sabres. I have just buried it in the woods and the swamps of Savenay. According to the orders that you gave me, I crushed the children under the feet of the horses, massacred the women who, at least for these, will not give birth to any more brigands. I do not have a prisoner to reproach me. I have exterminated all. The roads are sown with corpses. At Savenay, brigands are arriving all the time claiming to surrender, and we are shooting them non-stop... Mercy is not a revolutionary sentiment."
Thank you, Joe, for the information. Sorry this was so late, but I've been fairly busy the last few days.
Viking
Now that the bill has been signed...
"Obama's Office of Management and Budget Director, Peter Orszag, has now indirectly admitted that ObamaCare will impose a system of rationing through the newly-created "Independent Payment Advisory Board."
It's the "Golden Rule" - them that has the gold makes the rules. If anyone actually believes that this, the most pro-death admin ever, won't use this to justify denial of care of even euthanasia, and that barring a revival of Christianity ANY future admin wouldn't, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=13765&posts=2
Is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff a Distributist ?
Mullen apologizes for comments on wounded care
A call by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs for community organizations to step in to help wounded war veterans make the transition to civilian life has drawn complaints from a major veterans organization and an apology from the JCS chairman.
“The point I was trying to make, perhaps not so eloquently, is that the scope of the needs confronting our troops and their families is too great and too deep to be met only through the bureaucracy,” Mullen said. “Yes, the government must provide our veterans with educational opportunities, employment assistance and quality health care. But we must also recognize there are some needs best delivered and best administered at the local level.”
http://militarytimes.com/news/2010/05/military_veterans_community_mullen_050410w/
Is this not an affirmation that Obamacare is "too big to succeed" and that LOCAL solutions are best ? I mean if they can't handle the VA system - what makes them think they can handle the whole country ?
Buhler... Buhler - ANYONE ?
Late. Very late to the conversation...but I submit the premise is wrong with regard to the "greater good"...there's no such thing, ultimately, Scripturally.
By the theory of "greater good", the individual is subjugated - this counters Catholic Christian teaching and invites secular selection - this "good" is greater, while individuals - the preborn, the aged, the infirm, the unproductive, are the "lesser". Sounds like a whole lot of historical ugliness repeating itself, if you ask me.
There's neither health nor care in that bill, and certainly there's no justice. Christ was in fact a merciful revolutionary, but not a juvenile Robin Hood. The standard we've been called to is much higher than we're willing to rest on.
Get Insure for your risk. Read this articel to help get the right insurance as your needed
http://www.insurancebenefit.tk
My BR/Eva
Post a Comment