Not that I hadn't already given up hope on the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), but their support of the healthcare overhaul - so long as it doesn't pay for abortion - is mind-numbing. As if the whole thing is just peachy, save for the abortion issue.
Time and time again, they come down in favor of socialism and, in this case, they've done so again.
They should just change their name to the United Socialist Conference of Communist Bishops, for crying out loud.
Posts
18 comments:
word
While I agree that I wish they would recognize additional shortcomings to the legislation, I think this cartoon is framed a little inaccurately. As far as I'm aware, the bishops object to the moral implications of the lack of limitations on abortion funding and conscience protection, not the monetary cost such funding.
So the weight that the taxpayer would have to lift would be fiscal, and the issue that the bishops are concerned with is moral. Seems like apples and oranges to me.
Blue - the point is that the Bishops think that, without the abortion issue, this healthcare package is a great idea. Of course, they're not economists, and I don't expect them to be, but advocating the government taking over our life decisions is advocating socialism.
The weight of this legislation on the taxpayers is not only fiscal, it's moral. And the bishops are wrong to intimate that the abortion issue is the only moral issue tangled up in it.
Fasten your belts folks, because the USCCB is going to get even more annoying as they play the "moral high ground" card and support and shill for immigration "reform" (codespeak for mass amnesty). Anyone with a lick of common sense knows darned well that this is not going to "reform" anything, except insuring that the Democratic party will always have a voting majority.
¿Comprendes?
You've got that one right on, Robert. That's why they call the USCCB "democrats in robes".
This bill violates not only Catholic moral teaching because of the funding of abortion, it also violates Catholic social teaching. This bill violates the principle of subsidiarity in more ways than I can count. It obliterates freedom, both economic and individual. John Paul II has already written that the Catholic church is opposed to all forms of collectivism and that's exactly what this bill does and why it is morally wrong for reasons other than abortion.
I've been thinking this all day. Thanks for the laugh and visual.
John Paul II has already written that the Catholic church is opposed to all forms of collectivism and that's exactly what this bill does and why it is morally wrong for reasons other than abortion.
--------------------------
Which basically highlights how the USCCB should just drop the "Catholic" name.
Very fitting, Kenneth.
So let met get this straight: in your opinion, if someone can't afford healthcare, so be it, nobody should help them?
How is that christian? Whatever happened to sharing you wealth with those who need it ?
That's what's going on in France where I come from, and I'm happy to pay for it.
No, that is not my opinion, Jean.
In fact, I teach my own kids that failure to help others will lead to you losing what the Lord has given you.
On the healthcare issue - we continue to have a tilting of society where a smaller and smaller group of people are paying for the services that others receive. That can't possibly continue - eventually the fatted cow won't be so fat.
But whatever charity we Americans give, it's our free choice to do so. Government "taking" from us isn't charity.
I'm firmly in the middle class here, and there are many things still on my "wish list", but I certainly don't believe that my neighbor should be paying for them.
So it's really not as simple as "Oh, you're against the healthcare bill - you hate people."
>So it's really not as simple as "Oh, you're against the healthcare bill - you hate people."
----
I'll go past your oversimplification (I've gotten used to it by now), and I'll just point out one thing:
In the US at the moment, some people do not receive basic healthcare, even if they are working honestly, just because the cannot afford it.
Even if the current healthcare plan puts too much load on the wrong people (middle class), this current situation is simply impossible to sustain.
Jean, I'll give you some background. As the VP of my company, I've been involved in the administration of our healthcare package for about 17 years now.
I've seen a family plan go from $335 a month for family coverage (fully paid by the company) to over $1400 a month for family coverage (30% paid by company). What is that, almost a 400% increase in just 17 years?
But why such an increase? A good part of that is due to the fact that the States (Maryland, in my case) continue to add to the list of mandated coverage. So all of us pay for services that many of us don't use. Plus, because we have employees in two states, there are only so many plans we can employ. Many that cover one state won't cover another. Why not?
Plus, medical malpractice is outrageous in America. The insurance the doctors have to pay is forcing them out of business. We've had 4 children delivered by 3 difference doctors (all women). 2 of those 3 women have stopped delivering babies because they can't afford the insurance.
Obama's healthcare plan doesn't fix what's wrong, it just makes things worse.
There's your real-life perspective.
"all of us pay for services that many of us don't use. "
Sure, if you consider good health to be a service a "service", and not a human right. I don't. I think the whole "every man for himself" american ideology simply doesn't work in that instance.
"But whatever charity we Americans give, it's our free choice to do so. Government "taking" from us isn't charity."
Sure, so I'm assuming you're spending plenty of time and money supporting you local free clinic.
However, Paul, just to be clear, I do agree with that there's a limit to what the average Joe taxpayer can afford for healthcare. In my opinion, tow problems are plaguing the american systems:
-Ruthless, unregulated privatisation of healthcare, which allows greedy private insurance company to gain money on the back of people's health problems, and on the back of small businesse like your
-The unsufficient taxing of very rich companies and wealthy individuals who can afford much more than they are currently paying for healthcare. But they have way too much influence on the US government for that.
Jean,
Believe me, it's not insufficient taxing of the corporations that is the problem. It's too much taxation.
Sure, we can rail about those "evil rich" people all day long. But socking it to them ends up screwing the guy who could most benefit from his largesse. I work for one of those guys. We currently aren't even considering hiring more men because we're getting kicked in the stones by taxes everywhere we turn.
Is health care a right? That depends on what you mean. Do I have the right to goods and services? Sure I do. We have many rights in this country. But my rights END when someone else has to foot the bill. When someone else has to pay for it, that's not a right, that's a benefit. And we're not entitled to benefits.
As for "greedy insurance companies":
Sure, there's greed everywhere. But those insurance companies had *better* be making good profits, otherwise, how in the world would they have the cash flow to pay all the claims?
Obama is tinkering with profit margins, which affects cash flow. Ask any business owner who's breaking even or eking out a small profit, and he'll tell you that getting the bills paid on time is a problem.
The same holds true with insurance companies.
If you make it so that they don't have cash flow to pay claims, who gets hurt? ME - when I show up for a procedure and the hospital says no because my insurance company doesn't pay the claims I have outstanding.
Yea, let's sock it to the insurance companies. That's just a great idea.
I know this is an old topic, but I am always a little confused as a Catholic by this argument. If the healthcare helps people, the economic impact should be worth it. whenever I hear this argument i just think back to acts. "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and soul: and not one of them said that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common and with great power gave the apostles their witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. For neither was there among them any that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,and laid them at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto each, according as any one had need."
Post a Comment