Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

11/21/2012 new

(Quote) Florian-626971 said: (Quote) Mary-814080 said: They modeled the national healthcare on the Ma...
(Quote) Florian-626971 said:

Quote:
Mary-814080 said:

They modeled the national healthcare on the Massachusetts model and yes it is a very blue state but they tended in the late 90's and early millenia to elect Republican governors. If Mr. Romney didn't think that this was a good plan he could have vetoed it, but health insurance costs at the time this was enacted were in the double digits. Do I like Obamacare? Not really, there are things in this plan that I do not like and go against my beliefs, but if it will help the citizens who have nothing then it could be good. Healthcare is not cheap and if you are employed your employer will soon be telling you how much this costs them on a yearly basis. Most of us do not have a cadillac plan but it covers our expenses.


Florian, I think both Medicare and Medicaid are good programs that provide assistance to the most neediest citizens. Our elderly have medicare and another health plan to cover what Medicare doesn't. It's not cheap.


Of course, it's not cheap. But WHY is it not cheap? I have suggested and Cheryl has now suggested that government involvement might be part of the reason why health care is so expensive. I can't prove it here, but if government is part of the problem, then I think we can agree that it's probably not rational to look to government for solutions. This is one reason why I think Obamacare is so irrational.

Just think about the possibilities of health care in a more free, libertarian society. Would it be less safe because it is less regulated? Okay, that's one negative consequence. But on the positive side, just think how easy and cheap it would be to treat your sinus infections. That doctors visit would be cheaper. Maybe there would be no co-pays, but the doctor's office gave out coupons to make going to the doctor more affordable. Maybe you wouldn't need to get a licensed doctor to give you a prescription anyway, especially if gov't didn't force doctors to be licensed. Just walk into the pharmacy and get your anti-biotics. Maybe there would be better and cheaper treatments for sinus infections if the FDA weren't regulating them so much. FDA, remember, is a government agency. Gosh... everytime I turn around, I notice yet another little way that government/bureaucracy makes health care more inconvenient and expensive.

--hide--

Interesting, Florian. Remember back circa 100 years ago or so, when nothing was regulated as far as food and medicine are concerned?

Just walk into a pharmacy and get your antibiotics? Really, that's what you want? How would Joe Six-Pack know what antibiotics go with which disease?

James

LOCKED
11/21/2012 new

(Quote) Florian-626971 said: (Quote) Karis-410918 said: Socialism is actually a state of mind, it has...
(Quote) Florian-626971 said:

Quote:
Karis-410918 said:

Socialism is actually a state of mind, it has nothing to do with transferring wealth among classes. There are some very wealthy people who live like socialists, they give away their wealth away to the poor, or the church while living very modest lives. Most of them will be found in the west. On the other hand, there are those who profess socialism by name only, but live the lives of capitalists. Lots of them will be found today in China, and in the then Soviet Union. In the halls of academia, it is often a tragic fantasy. Among the republicans, it is used as a four letter word to describe those they are in disagreement with; in this forum, it is used as an anti-religious crusade with a dose of bigotry toward those that do not confirm to a crazy theology or political irrelevance.


Socialism has everything to do with transferring wealth. Please see the definitions of socialism which have been discussed in this thread. Giving your wealth away to the poor is not "living like a socialist." Socialsim means giving wealth to the government, or rather being forced to give to the government, because in socialism it is government who has ultimate ownership of the means of production, of property. The opposite of gov't control in socialism is free markets. In free markets, the wealthy are free to give to the poor; but that doesn't turn a free market into a socialist one.

--hide--

Right, Florian. Remember those land-grant universities we talked about earlier? You have no problems with that type of socialism, do you?


wink

James

LOCKED
11/21/2012 new

(Quote) Florian-626971 said: (Quote) Karis-410918 said: Eric, Just which are Romney's va...
(Quote) Florian-626971 said:

Quote:
Karis-410918 said:

Eric,

Just which are Romney's values, versus Obama's values? Do good values only rest with conservatives, neo-cons and ultra-right conservatives?

I want to make sure that I get you right. Obama was elected by a coalition of a majority of white women (rich, middle class and poor, a majority of Latinos (rich, middle class, and poor), majority of African Americans (rich, middle class, and poor), a majority of Asian Americans (rich, middle class, and poor) In your mind of minds, are you suggesting that those people, all of them, 51% of the American voters including me voted for Obama because he gave us handouts? Romney and Ryan called them gifts....Really? I will bet you this, most of us saw our values in Obama, his stand on abortion, notwithstanding! I do not know who is responsible for delivering Obama's handouts and gifts (Post office may be), so if you know who they are tell them that we are still waiting, to please hurry them up!

Lets take Romney, you are aware he flip-flopped on issues, you are aware he told lies, a lot! esp in the final days of Ohio campaigns. You are aware also that he changed his positions so much that toward the end of the campaigns he was sounding just like Obama. In fact in matters of foreign policy, he did not oppose Obama's position. He agreed with him on his foreign policy platform on every point. Most people, on the left or and on the right abhor abortion, but most of us also agree that a woman should be given every right and information and understanding to control her own destiny with regard to her body. Mind you, this has been Romney's position over the years, but, only changed for presidential elections.

Eric, you are also aware of the discussions by conservative republicans about rape, right? You caveat your stand by stating that you are a one issue voter. Fine, I accept that but most of us are many issue voters.

To suggest, therefore, that the majority of us who voted for Obama did so because of handouts, and gifts and not values is simply INASANE!

Most of us do still not understand the values of a rich kid, an interesting faith, and one who is still complaining that those who are not as rich as he is do not love him enough to vote him to the presidency. We simply do not think he is good enough for the job. That's all. You can call them values, but that is simplifying the matter too much!

Final point. If the republicans continue to insult the rest of us as they are doing, whether it is about one or two issues, you will continue to loose. It is not about anyone's wealth, it is patent foolishness and ignorance that we do not understand.


I find the criticism of Romney mind-boggling. Not that he's beyond criticism, but the nit-picky critiques of him pale in comparison to the criticisms that can be made about Obama in his first term. Flip-flopping? What about Obama's huge flip-flops? Obama used to be a communist, but in the second debate he says he believes in free markets! For twenty years he listened intently to the sermons of Jeremiah Wright. Then, in 2008, he said he didn't pay attention and threw him under the bus.

And we're wondering whether ROMNEY was good enough for the job? Of course, he is. So many people are, now that Obama, as well as Bush and Clinton (impeached), have set the bar so low. We were electing the man to run the country. If you had a company, and had to decide between Obama and Romney as to who should run it, who would you choose?... Thought so.

--hide--

Maybe it is Romney's utter contempt for almost half the nation that did him in:

www.youtube.com

James

LOCKED
11/21/2012 new

(Quote) Joe-787295 said: (Quote) John-221057 said: Since we're on the topic, I'd invite hardc...
(Quote) Joe-787295 said:

Quote:
John-221057 said:

Since we're on the topic, I'd invite hardcore Republicans who are also Catholics to take a look at the principles of Catholic social teaching:
www.centacarebrisbane.net.au


This one is especially important and is why I support social democratic political parties:

. The Principle of Preferential Option for the Poor and Vulnerable

In a society marred by deepening divisions between rich and poor, our tradition recalls the

story of the last judgement (Mt 25.31-46) and instructs us to put the needs of the poor and

vulnerable first. The United States’ Bishops put it well: “The needs of the poor take priority

over the desires of the rich; the rights of workers over the maximisation of profits; the

preservation of the environment over uncontrolled industrial expansion.”



John - you are in principle correct. The mistake you make is that we should let the federal government do it. Those of us that are against the federal government handling this does not make us anti-poor. It makes us anti-government. The federal government is large, inefficient, corrupt and immoral.

If they were not raping us for 50% of our incomes, it would be a lot easier to contribute to the causes of "our choice"

I am also against the Dept. of Education, that doesn't mean I don't think we should educate our children.

--hide--

Hi Joe et alia,

Hyperbole aside, I am interested in seeing some data that suggests that Americans are forking over 50% of their income.


James

LOCKED
11/21/2012 new

(Quote) James-17080 said: Maybe it is Romney's utter contempt for almost half the nation that did him ...
(Quote) James-17080 said:

Maybe it is Romney's utter contempt for almost half the nation that did him in:

www.youtube.com

James

--hide--


Romney lost because of voter fraud. We all know that.

LOCKED
11/21/2012 new

(Quote) James-17080 said: First paragraph: False. Health care is a public good, and if you think this is in any way untrue, ...
(Quote) James-17080 said:

First paragraph: False. Health care is a public good, and if you think this is in any way untrue, just wait until the next epidemic breaks out. More and more diseases, from gonorrhea to tuberculosis, are becoming harder and harder to treat because of misuse or overuse of antibiotics. And if there is a filovirus breakout, what do you want it to be, every man for himself (herself) because that's the way we handled medicine in the 18th Century?

Second paragraph. Oh, that's nice to know that those without health insurance should be left to die. But then they go to the ER, where the government picks up the tab anyway. Who do you think pays for their treatment, a secret Santa?

Third paragraph: I have a vision for government health care? Oh well, let's move on. Your argument here is interesting (if fallacious). The fact is that we will all need health care at some point of our lives, from birth to death. You seem to think that persons who pay into a system are shafted if they never receive services from that system. But that is what insurance is, is it not?

Fourth paragraph. Before I answer this, let me ask you something: Have you ever received Social Security or Medicare?

James

--hide--

Well, you're back.

I thought I already conceded that a government can respond to a pandemic/epidemic as part of its national security responsibilities. We were talking about "personal health care"... that is not a public good.

Yes, I understand that social programs are thought to benefit the whole public if they are considered insurance. But, of course, there is also private insurance. It is not necessary for government to provide insurance. Further, people pay into private insurance volutarily, knowing that they may get "shafted" if they never have to use the service anyway. But, at least it's voluntary, whereas payroll taxes for SSI and Medicare are not volutary.

Finally, I've never received Social Security or Medicare benefits.

LOCKED
11/21/2012 new

(Quote) James-17080 said: Interesting, Florian. Remember back circa 100 years ago or so, when nothing was ...
(Quote) James-17080 said:

Interesting, Florian. Remember back circa 100 years ago or so, when nothing was regulated as far as food and medicine are concerned?

Just walk into a pharmacy and get your antibiotics? Really, that's what you want? How would Joe Six-Pack know what antibiotics go with which disease?

James

--hide--

Yes, and we've come a long way in 100 years. Now we've overdone it and are too regulated. The FDA needs to get back to it's original, simpler mandate, get off the backs of alternative medicines, etc.

LOCKED
11/21/2012 new

(Quote) Florian-626971 said: (Quote) James-17080 said: First paragraph: False. Health care is a publi...
(Quote) Florian-626971 said:

Quote:
James-17080 said:

First paragraph: False. Health care is a public good, and if you think this is in any way untrue, just wait until the next epidemic breaks out. More and more diseases, from gonorrhea to tuberculosis, are becoming harder and harder to treat because of misuse or overuse of antibiotics. And if there is a filovirus breakout, what do you want it to be, every man for himself (herself) because that's the way we handled medicine in the 18th Century?

Second paragraph. Oh, that's nice to know that those without health insurance should be left to die. But then they go to the ER, where the government picks up the tab anyway. Who do you think pays for their treatment, a secret Santa?

Third paragraph: I have a vision for government health care? Oh well, let's move on. Your argument here is interesting (if fallacious). The fact is that we will all need health care at some point of our lives, from birth to death. You seem to think that persons who pay into a system are shafted if they never receive services from that system. But that is what insurance is, is it not?

Fourth paragraph. Before I answer this, let me ask you something: Have you ever received Social Security or Medicare?

James


Well, you're back.

I thought I already conceded that a government can respond to a pandemic/epidemic as part of its national security responsibilities. We were talking about "personal health care"... that is not a public good.

Yes, I understand that social programs are thought to benefit the whole public if they are considered insurance. But, of course, there is also private insurance. It is not necessary for government to provide insurance. Further, people pay into private insurance volutarily, knowing that they may get "shafted" if they never have to use the service anyway. But, at least it's voluntary, whereas payroll taxes for SSI and Medicare are not volutary.

Finally, I've never received Social Security or Medicare benefits.

--hide--


Yes, I'm back. Thought you were rid of me, didn't you?

First paragraph. When, in your world, does health transition from becoming a private issue to a public one?

Second paragraph. Sure, there are private insurers. Do you really think we'd be talking about this at all if maybe they put the public good before dividends for private investors?

Third paragraph. Yeah, that's what I thought. You're only interested in social programs that favor you.

James

LOCKED
11/21/2012 new

(Quote) James-17080 said: Right, Florian. Remember those land-grant universities we talked about earlier? You have no proble...
(Quote) James-17080 said:

Right, Florian. Remember those land-grant universities we talked about earlier? You have no problems with that type of socialism, do you?

James

--hide--

I am against that type of socialism most of all. It has ruined higher education. I thought I mentioned that in an earlier post.

LOCKED
11/21/2012 new

(Quote) Florian-626971 said: (Quote) James-17080 said: Interesting, Florian. Rememb...
(Quote) Florian-626971 said:

Quote:
James-17080 said:

Interesting, Florian. Remember back circa 100 years ago or so, when nothing was regulated as far as food and medicine are concerned?

Just walk into a pharmacy and get your antibiotics? Really, that's what you want? How would Joe Six-Pack know what antibiotics go with which disease?

James


Yes, and we've come a long way in 100 years. Now we've overdone it and are too regulated. The FDA needs to get back to it's original, simpler mandate, get off the backs of alternative medicines, etc.

--hide--

Oh yes, I know you're against regulations. Unfortunately, the things you want to deregulate are exactly the things that need regulating in the first place! Why do you think the Pure Food and Drug Act was passed in the first place?

James

This topic has been automatically locked due to size. Any further discussion can be continued in a new topic.
LOCKED
Posts 191 - 200 of 200