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

Nov 15th 2012 new

Here is an easy definition of socialism....

When govt. overtakes everything whether it belongs there or not and runs private business out of everything!

Originally our federal govt. was set up for our DEFENSE period. Everything else was the states responsibility. Some states do it well.....where there is less govt. like TX and FL...other states like CA, NY are going bankrupt....why is that....because they spend more and more despite continually raising taxes.

LOCKED
Nov 15th 2012 new

(Quote) Mary-117586 said: Don't forget that Karol W. (Pope John Paul II) lived through socialistic Poland and was instru...
(Quote) Mary-117586 said:

Don't forget that Karol W. (Pope John Paul II) lived through socialistic Poland and was instrumental in praying Poland's people through the demise of it in the 80's.

The Catholic Church is against socialism (I'm paraphrasing) because it takes away from the God given dignity of the human person. A system that discourages a soul from living up to their God Given potential is contrary to our beliefs. God wants us to discover our unique path to heaven through success on this earth. When opportunity is taken away - and through the HHS mandate - now religious freedom taken away, many souls will be at risk. Humanistic and socialistic views are IMO evil and selfish under the guise of 'helping' that poor whomever through gifts of food or birth control or taking their fetus or giving them a government job. It will suck the life out of many before we have a real revolution. We all should be praying with great zeal to rid our nation of the mindset that has invaded half of us.

--hide--
So true...I know I've gone without full-time for so long that I almost gave up and became one of the 47%...but I'm thankful to say that CM encouraged me and I didn't give up! Thank you CM!

LOCKED
Nov 15th 2012 new

(Quote) James-17080 said: Yes, personal health care is a public good. Are you really suggesting to me that if people can'...
(Quote) James-17080 said:

Yes, personal health care is a public good. Are you really suggesting to me that if people can't afford personal health care, they should be left to die? Yes, people take care of their own needs in a lot of areas. I'm not suggesting that those who can fend for themselves should be taken care of by the government. But there are a lot of people who can't, and this is why we have Social Security and Medicare (which you consider "socialism"). Let me ask you this: Do you consider socialism with respect to Medicare and Social Security bad things?

Congrats on getting your Ph.D from a public university. You know, a university which the state pays for most of your education. It looks to me that you're all in favor of some forms of socialism, and not in favor of socialism which doesn't affect you. Now, admittedly, maybe that's not true. But based on my interactions with you, that's what it looks like.

James ☺

--hide--

No. Personal health care is a personal good, not a public good. That is clear.

Of course, I am not suggesting that those without health insurance ought to be left to die. What sort of people would allow that to happen? If there are people do consciously let that happen, then I admit that they should be held responsible somehow. But that doesn't mean that the government is responsible if its constitution does not charge it with that responsibility.

In your vision for gov't health care, the government does not take care of those who can fend for themselves. Thus, your gov't health care does not serve the public, only certain members of public. Why does this not prove that personal health care is not a public good? Actually, what you are identifying as a public good is not really health care but welfare, or broadly speaking, poverty insurance, which covers not just poverty but all low income people for whom health insurance is cost-prohibitive.

So, are Social Security and Medicare, and for that matter, welfare all bad things? It is difficult to argue that these are public goods. One could argue that they are by saying they're insurance which covers everybody and therefore serves the whole public. This is how Social Security was originally conceived. In the event you lived to be too old, SSI had you covered (age 65 was the life expectancy when SSI was first enacted). I don't know, maybe its not such a bad idea to have saftey net like Social Security as a last resort for people. But it was probably bad that we've expanded the Social Security program so much since the 1930's. If welfare is absolutely necessary to deal with poverty, then I am in favor of that too. However, Medicare, I would say, has been a bad thing overall. The USA survived for 190 years without the Medicare program. Medicare was a big step in the march of government towards greater and greater involvement in the health care industry. That involvement has led to health care costs rising out of control, though better medical technology also must have contributed to that as well.

LOCKED
Nov 15th 2012 new

(Quote) Joe-787295 said: James, I'll give a shot at answering your questions. Social Security, medic...
(Quote) Joe-787295 said:


James, I'll give a shot at answering your questions.

Social Security, medicare, medicaid are all socialism. What do you think is the return on all the social security taxes paid over a lifetime. It's terrible. This government borrows 120 billion dollars a month. Would anyone recommend that a typical family borrow each month just to pay bills. With this current government, that's what a lot of families are doing.

As far as roads and bridges, I pay registration fees, taxes on gas and tires, tolls on roads, sales tax etc. How were roads and bridges and all the other stuff you're talking about happen before 1913.

Why are there so many people that think a bunch of elected and unelected politicians can spend money more wisely than you can. They have demonstrated they can't and only do it for their own personal enrichment. The more you give them the more they want. Taxation generally serves those in power, not the general public. It is a way of controlling the population and keeping most of us serfs.

In addition to personal income taxes, make a list of all the other stuff that you are forced to pay. It is well over 50% of income. How's that working out for everyone?

If all these rules and regulations are so wonderful, why does congress exempt themselves from their own laws.

--hide--
Exactly, it puts us back to the time of Kings and Queens and rich dukes and knights of the round table while the rest of the population are still the poor serfs. The president and his wife will be rich...congressmen will be rich.....but the serfs will still be the serfs and very poor....that is the rest of us.

LOCKED
Nov 15th 2012 new

(Quote) Florian-626971 said: No. Personal health care is a personal good, not a public good. That is clear. ...
(Quote) Florian-626971 said:

No. Personal health care is a personal good, not a public good. That is clear.

Of course, I am not suggesting that those without health insurance ought to be left to die. What sort of people would allow that to happen? If there are people do consciously let that happen, then I admit that they should be held responsible somehow. But that doesn't mean that the government is responsible if its constitution does not charge it with that responsibility.

In your vision for gov't health care, the government does not take care of those who can fend for themselves. Thus, your gov't health care does not serve the public, only certain members of public. Why does this not prove that personal health care is not a public good? Actually, what you are identifying as a public good is not really health care but welfare, or broadly speaking, poverty insurance, which covers not just poverty but all low income people for whom health insurance is cost-prohibitive.

So, are Social Security and Medicare, and for that matter, welfare all bad things? It is difficult to argue that these are public goods. One could argue that they are by saying they're insurance which covers everybody and therefore serves the whole public. This is how Social Security was originally conceived. In the event you lived to be too old, SSI had you covered (age 65 was the life expectancy when SSI was first enacted). I don't know, maybe its not such a bad idea to have saftey net like Social Security as a last resort for people. But it was probably bad that we've expanded the Social Security program so much since the 1930's. If welfare is absolutely necessary to deal with poverty, then I am in favor of that too. However, Medicare, I would say, has been a bad thing overall. The USA survived for 190 years without the Medicare program. Medicare was a big step in the march of government towards greater and greater involvement in the health care industry. That involvement has led to health care costs rising out of control, though better medical technology also must have contributed to that as well.

--hide--
Could you explain more why you think medicare is bad and medicaid is not because medicare helps the elderly who are no longer working with jobs and don't have insurance? My parents have medicare and they also pay into it too so it doesn't just completely cover them but it helps.

Again, as I said on the other thread...I don't have a problem with republicans using the safety net and helping those in need (true need not birth control and abortions because that is NOT health care) cause we all are in need sooner or later, I think...but I just don't know the best way for that to happen.

LOCKED
Nov 15th 2012 new

(Quote) Florian-626971 said: (Quote) James-17080 said: Yes, personal health care is a public good. Ar...
(Quote) Florian-626971 said:

Quote:
James-17080 said:

Yes, personal health care is a public good. Are you really suggesting to me that if people can't afford personal health care, they should be left to die? Yes, people take care of their own needs in a lot of areas. I'm not suggesting that those who can fend for themselves should be taken care of by the government. But there are a lot of people who can't, and this is why we have Social Security and Medicare (which you consider "socialism"). Let me ask you this: Do you consider socialism with respect to Medicare and Social Security bad things?

Congrats on getting your Ph.D from a public university. You know, a university which the state pays for most of your education. It looks to me that you're all in favor of some forms of socialism, and not in favor of socialism which doesn't affect you. Now, admittedly, maybe that's not true. But based on my interactions with you, that's what it looks like.

James ☺


No. Personal health care is a personal good, not a public good. That is clear.

Of course, I am not suggesting that those without health insurance ought to be left to die. What sort of people would allow that to happen? If there are people do consciously let that happen, then I admit that they should be held responsible somehow. But that doesn't mean that the government is responsible if its constitution does not charge it with that responsibility.

In your vision for gov't health care, the government does not take care of those who can fend for themselves. Thus, your gov't health care does not serve the public, only certain members of public. Why does this not prove that personal health care is not a public good? Actually, what you are identifying as a public good is not really health care but welfare, or broadly speaking, poverty insurance, which covers not just poverty but all low income people for whom health insurance is cost-prohibitive.

So, are Social Security and Medicare, and for that matter, welfare all bad things? It is difficult to argue that these are public goods. One could argue that they are by saying they're insurance which covers everybody and therefore serves the whole public. This is how Social Security was originally conceived. In the event you lived to be too old, SSI had you covered (age 65 was the life expectancy when SSI was first enacted). I don't know, maybe its not such a bad idea to have saftey net like Social Security as a last resort for people. But it was probably bad that we've expanded the Social Security program so much since the 1930's. If welfare is absolutely necessary to deal with poverty, then I am in favor of that too. However, Medicare, I would say, has been a bad thing overall. The USA survived for 190 years without the Medicare program. Medicare was a big step in the march of government towards greater and greater involvement in the health care industry. That involvement has led to health care costs rising out of control, though better medical technology also must have contributed to that as well.

--hide--


Hi Florian,

I'll read your answer tomorrow. Right now, I have to take care of something else irked

James☺

LOCKED
Nov 15th 2012 new

(Quote) Cheryl-409772 said: It isn't A LOT of people who don't have health care...just those that are right above po...
(Quote) Cheryl-409772 said:

It isn't A LOT of people who don't have health care...just those that are right above poverty level, like me...I don't have it...and I dont want Obamacare! The others with more money might chose not to have it but that is their choice. The very poor have medicaid. At any rate, it would have been a LOT cheaper for our nation to just pay for those that don't have health care (extend medicaid) rather than force Obamacare on us which pays for health care for people who make up to 90,000 dollars a year and forces people to go against their conscience to pay for birth control and abortion...which is NOT even health care. By the way Romney did own up to health care at the STATE level and at least said that they didnt' raise taxes. Also, both houses in MI were controlled by democrats (liberal socialist now) and he didn't have much choice....it was going to happen...the whole state is 4 liberals to every 1 conservative.

--hide--

Actually, the call letters for Massachusetts is MA, not MI.

You're quite right about Romney. Romney was being responsible by getting involved in crafting Romney-care. Sure, Romney could have certified his conservative credentials by vetoing any health care bill, but the MA legislature was so Democrat that it would have overridden his veto and put into place a more liberal gov't health care system that would not have been fiscally good for the state. Romney worked with the legislature to produce a law that at least was more moderate, if not conservative. That's what I've heard, anyway. If so, Romney has every right to take credit for what he accomplished with health care at the STATE level in MA (even though it did have an individual mandate, which I am not fond of). Romney-care was also a great example of how Romney could get bi-partisan work done with a legislature.

LOCKED
Nov 15th 2012 new

(Quote) Florian-626971 said: No. Personal health care is a personal good, not a public good. That is clear. ...
(Quote) Florian-626971 said:

No. Personal health care is a personal good, not a public good. That is clear.

Of course, I am not suggesting that those without health insurance ought to be left to die. What sort of people would allow that to happen? If there are people do consciously let that happen, then I admit that they should be held responsible somehow. But that doesn't mean that the government is responsible if its constitution does not charge it with that responsibility.

In your vision for gov't health care, the government does not take care of those who can fend for themselves. Thus, your gov't health care does not serve the public, only certain members of public. Why does this not prove that personal health care is not a public good? Actually, what you are identifying as a public good is not really health care but welfare, or broadly speaking, poverty insurance, which covers not just poverty but all low income people for whom health insurance is cost-prohibitive.

So, are Social Security and Medicare, and for that matter, welfare all bad things? It is difficult to argue that these are public goods. One could argue that they are by saying they're insurance which covers everybody and therefore serves the whole public. This is how Social Security was originally conceived. In the event you lived to be too old, SSI had you covered (age 65 was the life expectancy when SSI was first enacted). I don't know, maybe its not such a bad idea to have saftey net like Social Security as a last resort for people. But it was probably bad that we've expanded the Social Security program so much since the 1930's. If welfare is absolutely necessary to deal with poverty, then I am in favor of that too. However, Medicare, I would say, has been a bad thing overall. The USA survived for 190 years without the Medicare program. Medicare was a big step in the march of government towards greater and greater involvement in the health care industry. That involvement has led to health care costs rising out of control, though better medical technology also must have contributed to that as well.

--hide--
...anyway, I'm not sure why you say medicare is bad and medicaid isn't.....would you please explain?

LOCKED
Nov 15th 2012 new

(Quote) Florian-626971 said: Actually, the call letters for Massachusetts is MA, not MI. You're quite ri...
(Quote) Florian-626971 said:

Actually, the call letters for Massachusetts is MA, not MI.

You're quite right about Romney. Romney was being responsible by getting involved in crafting Romney-care. Sure, Romney could have certified his conservative credentials by vetoing any health care bill, but the MA legislature was so Democrat that it would have overridden his veto and put into place a more liberal gov't health care system that would not have been fiscally good for the state. Romney worked with the legislature to produce a law that at least was more moderate, if not conservative. That's what I've heard, anyway. If so, Romney has every right to take credit for what he accomplished with health care at the STATE level in MA (even though it did have an individual mandate, which I am not fond of). Romney-care was also a great example of how Romney could get bi-partisan work done with a legislature.

--hide--
I just wish eveyone else would understand this! Why didn't he talk more about it during the debates!

LOCKED
Nov 15th 2012 new

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.

LOCKED
Posts 101 - 110 of 200