Obama

[dairygirl4u2c]

it was asked if people really cannot help themselves. look at many cities, especially cities from the rust belt. you see millions who cannot find jobs, or resources etc. they can't just go to other cities. sure, some can, and do, but that doesn't address the issue for most of the people. they are stuck in hell holes of positions.

why do you think cities spend half their budget on crime? some cities. cause people cannot get ahead at all and have nothing, except maybe food stamps if they are lucky. it's not that people are just bad people. in fact, when folks in prison get jobs for even a short while, they go back to prison at a rate of 8%. when they don't, they get rearrested at a rate of 70%. most kids say htey want to go to cllege or get jobs etc, htey dont say they want to go to jail etc.

it's been said that welfare breaks up families. look at what's going on now- welfare reform has caused break up of families. welfare reform happened in the ninties with president clinton. they limit one's access to three years. reagan liked to say ludicris things like a welfare queen was milking hundreds of thousands, but in fact the worse cases documented was a woman who did identity theft and got $8000.
anyways, look around mostly the cities. you see families living in abandoned homes, living in their vans. look at even smaller towns, but everywhere- you see children being taken away cause the parents cannot care for them, cause they can't find jobs or a stable environment. it may not happen a lot, but ive see everything in this paragraph firsthand. sure, welfare reform has caused some families to 'double up' in their homes, etc. an that can be a good thing for some, in some situations. but not always. this is esseitally, the curse of the law--- some law has good effects and bad. we should be making laws that diminish bad effects and promote good. we shouldn't be saying "government is all bad" etc etc.
plus, for a lot of those families, it's a fundamental flaw of society, that they can't get ahead to the degree that this is a problem. families should be able to provide for themselves to a degree more significant than exists now.

Edited September 29, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

it's not even uncommon to see homeless children. california has 'welfare for children', not all states do. some states merely have 'homeless shelters for children'. if that's giving them a leg up, then yeah. i mean, as long as their education and 'boot strap' oppoturnities are okay, and they have food stamps or something like that, i suppose i'm not fundamentally opposed to homeless shelters for children, but.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1285783587' post='2176778']
However the Church says things like food, water and health care are human rights, and if people do not have access to food, water, housing or health care or the means to pay for them, then that is a major injustice (the Church says this, not me). [/quote]
Right and entitlement are not the same thing.


[quote]There is a common impression among many better-off people that the poor are lazy or just sit there waiting for a hand up. A minority of them may abuse the system, but the false impression that "poor equals lazy" can be corrected by spending some time getting to know the working poor, or the unemployed poor, ministering to them and getting to know them as human beings and not as strangers we have never met, who only exist in the context of political debates. Many of these people are living out the consequences of choices their parents made for them. Others, through misfortune or illness, find themselves needing help. Some are there because of their own choices, but they are humans and you don't let human beings rot in the street. The recession has pushed many previously middle class people into the ranks of the poor. If you visit the local office that hands out food stamps you may see people you know there.[/quote]
First hand experiences tells me a great many people do not give up luxuries, even when on welfare. It's simple reality that our system does not require effort on the part of recipients (not that I would approve of a government run system if it did, but it would make it more palatable)

You also to not unduly burden others by force of law in order to upgird social programs.

[quote]In fact perhaps a visit to the local welfare office is exactly was is needed for many people. ...[/quote]
I'll see your one friend and raise you over twelve years (between my current job and working in a rectory) of people abusing the system and not making even a slight attempt to find work or do without in order to save money. It's not a minority of people abusing the system--it's a majority. Some to a lesser extent than others. If you are not willing to take a low paying job to get off welfare, you are abusing the system. If you are not willing to set aside comforts to get off welfare, you are abusing the system.



[quote]Now you might say she could go to the Church, and indeed she could, except that often the Church does not even have the resources to pay its own people a living wage, let alone help all of the poor who come to her. At my (poor) parish we pay about $5,000/month in bus fares, emergency rent assistance, emergency utility assistance, food, gas money etc. We still have to turn people away. We have to, if we are going to have money to keep the doors open and the lights on. [/quote]
I wonder if that's due to a society that relies on the nanny state?


[quote]Our social security programs reflect our culture's concern for the poor, regardless of whether they are "deserving" or not (and the Church teaches that EVERYONE, even if they are an addict or a criminal, is deserving of human rights like life, food, health care etc). They protect all of us, even if we think that WE will never need them. The fact that we have these programs proclaims to others and to ourselves that we value our neighbors.
[/quote]
Again, right and entitlement are not synonymous. The government is the biggest obstacle to health care. Second is laziness. I've worked without health insurance. If the government is to provide health care, then I want drug and fitness tests for recipients. No smoking, no junk food, regular exercise--actually bothering to go get prescriptions refilled. The reality is that those on the state dole have better medicines than I do on health insurance--and they have no obligation to try to keep themselves healthy. I have encountered more than one humongous diabetic hypertensive welfare queen in my day.

[Winchester]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1285784718' post='2176786']
it was asked if people really cannot help themselves. look at many cities, especially cities from the rust belt. you see millions who cannot find jobs, or resources etc. they can't just go to other cities. sure, some can, and do, but that doesn't address the issue for most of the people. they are stuck in hell holes of positions.
[/quote]
[img]https://viet-nam.wikispaces.com/file/view/2066001554_2bc75c9089.jpg/34729171/2066001554_2bc75c9089.jpg[/img]

[dairygirl4u2c]

a lot of them are foreignors, but not all of them, if that picture is what is being implied.
i do concede, most of the families im thinking of, are foreign. not sure if illegal or not, but.

that win's experience shows him abuse, is in no doubt to me accurate. but that only means we cut the abuse, and do something about the people who genuinely need assistance. the people who need assitance, then, from what ive seen and hear here.... genuinely need it, to a large extent. but, they often get more than they need etc. if it's only for a few years, it's not that big of a deal, but.

incidentally, also, as a big note... is that welfare and such as direct aid, is merely millions of dollars i beleive it is, in the US, in spending. it might be a billion or two, not sure. but it's a fraction of the federal budget. it's arguing over peanuts, relatively speaking. the problems are from health care, sociali security, national debt, defense--- these are where the debate should lie, as far as finding proper solutions to government and society, cause this is where the beef is at.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Again, right and entitlement are not synonymous. The government is the biggest obstacle to health care. Second is laziness. I've worked without health insurance. If the government is to provide health care, then I want drug and fitness tests for recipients. No smoking, no junk food, regular exercise--actually bothering to go get prescriptions refilled. The reality is that those on the state dole have better medicines than I do on health insurance--and they have no obligation to try to keep themselves healthy. I have encountered more than one humongous diabetic hypertensive welfare queen in my day. [/quote]

this sounds more like it should be a call for reform, not that the government shouldnt be involved.
and it's hard to get the government to do anything competently, but it doesn't mean they can't.
and, it's not like all the other coutnirs don't spend like than we do, eg, 10% GDP v. 17% GDP for us, and get everyone covered. there's variations to cure the problems other counties encourter though.
it can be daunting fighting liberals who want to ruin healthcare with stupid policy, but it should be done, it should be engaged in. at least politicans dont do it, republicans, cause it'd be political suicide perhaps. at least some of them.
plus obama's policy as flawed as it is... does have some redeeming attribtues, like caps on the amount insuerers can spend, and openinging up policies to the freemarket, and the regulatios dictating how insurers can't exploit their patients. ideally, obama laid the framework, as we'll have reform in the future. it's hard to lay the groundwork obviously... so it's not necessarily a bad thing obama's law got passed.

[Winchester]

Actually, the point is that people cross deep water in contraptions like that. Crossing a small portion of the US is not an impossible task.

[dairygirl4u2c]

"like caps on the amount insuerers can spend"
that's suppose to say caps on the amount they can charge.
another good thing is that 'preexisting conditions' must be covered. this can be good or bad, depending on the details. those with bad conditions do need to pony up and take more responsibility for their condition, they should have to pay more premiums and deductibale, but that doesn't mean the system shouldnt make it accessible for even them, at least most of them, usually.

[Winchester]

Why should insurance have to accept pre-existing conditions? It's [i]insurance[/i]. This is the equivalent of requiring home insurance companies to accept homes already on fire.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i understand your point, but to me it's not as simple as that, and at worst more nebulous.

start with the proposition that the average person should have accessible health care. as a general principle, i'd think we could extend that to people with 'preexisting conditions', accessible to their own situation.
That should mean, higher premiums deductibles etc, for them. ideally, with regular folks and with those with conditions, we simply have a system that caps us out, just like insurance companies already do. those already sick then would be getting no special treatment if they get the same cap everyone else does, especially if they are making up for it with premium and deductiable hikes. Those who are poorer, maybe they get some assistance, subsidies, but ensure the carrots and sticks exist for them not to abuse it either-- and we probably should create systems solely made to address tehse people, to make it an efficient process. Most of their care should not be expensive, it's just the 'supply demand' and system we've designed to make it expenssive- the bottomline of doctor patient should exist for them, and easilyu could and would were it not for the system we've designed and let happen. it's not fair to let people fall through the cracks just cause of all our red tape and 'can't agree on the details so nothing happens' of a society (and one that doesn't let more doctors get admitted, simply due to politics, than the actual need).
most 'preexisting conditions' are things many joe's already have. eg, dibetese, high blood pressure, etc etc. the list goes on. youd almost be closing out all of em, if you closed em all out, or just those who happened to be able to pay outrageous jacked up prices. i personally wouldnt be opposed to closing out some people who are too far gone, from insurance or health care. tough decisions have to be made. it's most equitable to make those decisions with insurance pay out caps, though, as most people can understand that, and it's the way it's already done by insurance companies (HMOs are also not too far different from so called 'death panels', not that the later even exists, and both of these arent much different than 'insurance caps', minus the human discretion and involvement).
(and we should definitely open up the canadian markets to at least the poorer people, for medicine. the economics of this just make sense, it's a win win for everyone exept drug companies, but they aren't even losing inequitably here-- more needs said)
if we assume that a person should have access to a metaphorical cow, a basic unit of resource to get a basics of health care per the 'accessible health care', we have to assume that we should get those with preexisting conditions some help too- i dont see it as unrealistic to think that in a more natural law world, they would be able to get two cows or something to get health care, as a regular person would do what it takes to get health care. but it has to be 'reasonable' how much they'd get. so my bottomline is make it accessioble to them too, to a 'reasonable' degree.

Edited September 30, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[Winchester]

Alternatively, we could just leave people to run their businesses as they see fit (barring serious direct acts against environmental and public safety (you may not dump your hazardous waste in the kindergarten playground)) and let the customers determine whether a business survives or not.

I suspect that a great many hospitals and doctors would help those in need, perhaps in concert with insurance companies--if the government would only get out of the flooping way.

Maybe Obama and some of his cohorts could start an insurance company that doesn't raise rates for higher risks. There's a flooping idea--the socialists start the companies they want to legislate into existence.

They won't. You know why? Because they are stupid, lazy arse portals who would rather pass legislation to make people act the way they think people should act rather than be the change they want to see in the world.

Edited September 30, 2010 by Winchester

[Socrates]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1285783587' post='2176778']
The Church would definitely be against an "all-encompassing" welfare state... that would leave no room for the Church's ministry. We don't have an all-encompassing welfare state in America, nor in Europe, although theirs is larger . . .
[/quote]

If such welfare states don't exist in North America or Europe, where exactly do they exist? John Paul II in 1989 criticized them as something currently existing, not some non-existent hypothetical.

[quote]In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called "Welfare State". . . [/quote]
And, no, John Paul II wasn't writing about Communist countries like the Soviet Union here (which have elsewhere been condemned, and Centesimus Annus was concerned with the world in the wake of the collapse of global Communism).

In any case, it doesn't look like he saw the run-away expansion of government functions and social welfare spending as something to be uncritically applauded.


[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1285783959' post='2176780']
I definitely do not think he is pro-life, and if he had the chance I am sure he would be more pro-abortion, but the fact is the status quo is pretty pro-abortion so there isn't much need for action on his part. He already has almost everything he wants. I agree about the Mexico City Policy etc. These again reflect the status quo for the most part, they have been switching back and forth on that with every administration. It's a bone that the GOP Presidents throw to pro-lifers and a bone the Democrats throw to pro-abortion supporters to show "hey look I am pro-life" or "hey look I am pro-choice." It is a detail, not meaningless, but a detail. The health care bill, it remains to be seen how nasty that is, given that it will mostly be interpreted by bureaucrats (that he appoints of course). But I think it is premature to declare it pro-abortion.
[/quote]
I'm afraid I'm not sure what your point is. That it's not so bad to be pro-abortion or support pro-abortion politicians, so long as the "status quo" is pro-abortion?

[C Martel]

[quote name='Mikaele' timestamp='1285629354' post='2176309']
I'm not even living or from the States. But I was wondering, is Catholicism compatible with some of the bad policies Obama supports?Can you be a Catholic in good standing and still support this man?
[/quote]


No. I was so disappointed in Notre Dame when they gave him an honorary degree.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]I suspect that a great many hospitals and doctors would help those in need, perhaps in concert with insurance companies--if the government would only get out of the flooping way.[/quote]

that's one of the most naive things ive heard. but sure, they do cover emergency procedures, often. but consider what often happens, 'do you have health insurance? no. sorry, can't stay here, can't get these basic procedures done, eg teeth, basic surgeries etc.' or consider 'no insurance? we'll just get you to a point where we can drop you off somewhere like the homeless shelter.' or coronsider the fact that poor people are only covered as they are, cause of medicaid and medicare. many won't touch these cases otherwise.
id dont know what'd happen if we cut these gov programs. i suspect some doctors wold pony up, but the times they won't would be fragmented, and it wouldnt be nearly enough. doctors should be required to do a portion, for free... cause they get the benefit of a monoploy, with the AMA and society not allowing more doctors to exist, etc.
reality. i know of a guy who was dropped off at the homeless shelter, with an IV still in his arm. these things aren't uncommon at all. i know of a story where the hospital nun is the one who politely asks if they have health insurance, so that soemone else can do the dirty work.
by and large, people can get by without insurance, but not always when it's needed. (0and it's not about insurance, it's about actual 'health care'. as someoen against the insurance industries even existence, i use the term. plus if it's a necessary evil, i'll just use the term as established

Edited September 30, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[Winchester]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1285873668' post='2176989']
that's one of the most naive things ive heard. [/quote]
Then you must not have much experience with doctors or hospitals. Also, kiss my arse.