www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Endless Health Care Problems in the United Kingdom

The 111th Congress has shown itself to live up to that standard from its beginning.

There have been some analyses of how the stimulus funds were actually distributed. There seems to be a lot of walking around money and no correlation between unemployment rates and appropriation.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...d-to-states-that-need-jobs-79530417.html


And we need to trust this congress with 2,700 pages of another bill because of its intentions?

I've been reading the legislation summary. It's really a shame that the Democrats want old people to die. They are cutting the funding to Medicare in half. Does anyone really believe that they can provide coverage to three times the number of people that will be on Medicare in the next 10 years with half the money of the people they can't pay for now? I guess the old people are not an important vote anymore so they can get rid of them.

It's not about health care. It's about power and loss of freedom.

It's possible that the Medicare cuts won't make it to the final bill.

Good health is not a fundamental human right.

Well there is talk that billions maybe trillion of dollars will be saved. My question is this because we old unproductive people won't be worthy of spending money on?

The talk of savings lacks substance and seems to be an attempt at an intellectual sleight-of-hand.

I'm sorry, but I find that an obscene and offensive thing to read.

StuartK asked after one of Job's posts (above) 'see what we have to put up with?'

Well, I think the same thing could be asked now. We can be pretty sure that the Democrats don't want anyone to die, and to suggest such a thing is disgusting. We could equally ask how Republicans who stand so vehemently against socialised health care (at least partly) on the grounds that the current proposals are not 'pro-life' can elect governors and presidents that are quite happy to put criminals to death at the hand of the state. Never mind *questionable wars.

Life is sacred 'From conception to natural death' is what we are supposed to hold to. Is it not?

Some consistency and more judicious language is called for here.

Looking more and more like this bill will pass. Fortunately though it appears that it will face legal challenges on the grounds that it is unconstutional to require American citizens to purchase health insurance.

They may not want them to die, but their premature deaths will be an inevitable outcome of their policies. And there is nothing wrong with saying the policies encapsulated in both the Senate and House bills will have that effect--that's not attacking anyone's motivation, just straightforward policy analysis (which, inter alia, the CBO has confirmed). It's not that Democrats want old people to die, they just think good intentions are enough. But we all know what road is paved with good intentions.

I should also point out that Helen is just paraphrasing a Democratic congressman who said, in open debate on the floor of the House, that Republicans want old people to die--because they oppose policies that, interestingly, will probably cause old people to die.

A question: Back in September Alan Grayson, a Democrat from Florida's 16th District went to the House Floor with a chart with similar attacks on the Republican proposals. He said: "If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly! That's right. The Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick. Remember the Republican plan: Don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly." Did that bother you? If yes, why didn't you complain about that? And I distinctly remember that back when President Bush spoke about the need for a bipartisan effort to rescue Medicare (which is horribly bankrupt and a financial failure that will require trillions in new taxes to prop up in future years) he was accused by those in other party of wanting our seniors to die. And those who opposed the CHIPS program were openly accused of wanting children to die. Did that bother you? Did you speak against it?

As far as the death penalty, the Church still recognizes that the State may execute people and that it is just. The Church's growing opposition to death penalty in recent years is not based in any teaching that it is immoral but, rather, in mercy. Likewise, the Church did not rule that the two wars to liberate Afghanistan and Iran were unjust. It said that even just wars should be avoided and (although you didn't read it in too many places) it put the onus on both Afghanistan and Iraq as the ones who caused the wars.

So your call for consistency is a false one.

President Obama and others have spoken openly that the elderly should not expect to have their health problems fixed but, rather, that they should expect only to be helped with pain medication (see his informercial that ran on ABC last summer). He may not purposely want the elderly to die but if he is going to ration care (which he will have to do since they are cutting the Medicare budget by half) that may very well be an unintended effect. Had President Bush said or proposed such drastic Medicare cuts there would have been a movement to impeach him.

The most curious thing about this whole government takeover of health care is that no one cares about the costs. Look at social security. When it started there were 14 people paying in for every one receiving benefits. Now there are about 2 paying in for every one receiving it. And since we are an aging population the number of people on social security will triple in the next 15-20 years. There is only so much blood one can get from a turnip. Where is the money going to come from? And then the question is valid for health care (Senator Harkin made it pretty plain today that next year they would introduce legislation to move to single-payer, and a fully socialized system). That means rationing for all and even more tax increases.

Fox is a fairer source of news than is the Huffington Post and most of the major media. And that's not my personal opinion but the result of research conducted by The Los Angeles Times. Their research showed that Fox is just right of center while the rest of the major media (ABC, etc.) were all very left of center. If you don't believe it watch them all on the same day there is the March for Life in January. If there is any mention of the March for Life those who stand for Life will be called either "anti-abortion" or "anti-choice". But those who stand for abortion rights will not be called "pro-abortion" but "pro-choice". Bias to the extreme against Christians.

That is because you are unwilling to consider facts! A thorough look at the price differences between Maine and Massachusetts at one end and other states (like Texas and Virginia) easily show that government regulations can cause higher prices. Check out this article posted here. It documents how a very liberal originally pro-socialized medicine speechwriter got mugged by Massachusetts. When he moved from Washington, DC, to Massachusetts (a state with socialized health insurance) his health care premium went from $225/month to $500/month. I hope that you are rich and OK paying more than double for your health care.

Reform that involves capitalism is not window dressing. Reducing bad regulation has worked wonders in lowering costs and providing better quality service everywhere it is tried. That you would continue to label those who support a capitalist model of reform rather than a socialist one is a false accusation. You’ve offered no evidence of how government takeover of health care will reduce costs and improve quality.

The connection is pretty easy. You cite polls that most people in countries with socialized health care are happy, and that the polls prove it. But here in America such polls that show higher numbers are happy are irrelevant. This is especially odd when one considers that even poor people without insurance have access to better quality health care then do most people in countries with socialized medicine. That the latest methods of treatment are simply not available under socialized medicine does not seem to bother you? And you are willing to give that up here (with rationing it will happen – look at Oregon and Massachusetts, the drugs that are not available and the long wait lines).

Again, the solution here is capitalism. If the speechwriter I referenced earlier was allowed to keep the health insurance he purchased in Washington, DC when he moved to Massachusetts he’d still have health insurance. But because of the socialized medicine in Massachusetts he cannot afford it. For those poor who cannot afford health insurance once can save a lot of money getting rid of Medicaid and giving them either tax deductions or grants to purchase a health insurance plan that best suits their needs.

The Cato Institute published a good article on Socialized Health Care in Massachusetts. I post the link below.

Government is never the answer.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj29n2/cj29n2-7.pdf

LOL maybe those of us that do not want it should have just aded more pork and special exemptions so the total went way over the 2.2 trillion some are projecting. Then the dems could tell us it was our fault it did not pass.

Umm, because I don't live in the US and would never have heard it?

But I agree. It's appalling language to use, no matter who deploys it. That's why, when I lived in Canada and monitored US elections very closely, I was equally appalled by the so-called 'negative ads' run by both parties. Understand: I'm not partisan in all this. Rather, I'm trying desperately to suggest that it is just possible that what is being proposed here by those forum members most vehemently hostile to socialised health care is not necessarily the only possible option for orthodox, catholic Christians. This is because the hermeneutic of David Frum is not synonymous with that of the Gospel. And that being the case, some less passionate consideration of such matters as health care (and other political initiatives) is probably warranted by all orthodox, catholic Christians.


Hmm. When I read Evangelium vitae, I was under the distinct impression that Pope John Paul was suggesting that capital punishment was no longer appropriate based on the inherent dignity of human life. While true that the right of the state to execute is not denied, he wrote: '...offenders should not be executed except in cases of absolute necessity-when society's defense would otherwise be impossible. Such cases are very rare today, if not practically non-existent. Non-capital punishments better suit the common good and human dignity' (emphasis mine - obviously!). So it seems to me to have to do with a lot more than mercy alone. In any case...


Perhaps. But not intentional, insofar as I had no idea that such terrible words were being flung from, and at, both sides. But seeing as it's hardly becoming of people called to live in the Logos, perhaps my simultaneous call for judiciousness is worth taking on board by us all?

I'll leave it at that.