healthcare as a benefit/privilege?

[Saint Frankenstein]

I find it disgusting that access to healthcare isn't automatically considered a right.

 

[metis]

I find it disgusting that access to healthcare isn't automatically considered a right.

Amen to that. BTW, did you hear what the Pope said today? Hey, I really like this guy.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Amen to that. BTW, did you hear what the Pope said today? Hey, I really like this guy.

You mean this? Pope Francis: 'I prefer a church which is bruised, hurting and dirty'

No, I hadn't heard. Thanks for mentioning it. I love Papa Francesco. We share a namesake. I think he will go down as one of the greatest Popes. We really needed someone like him to remind the Church of its true mission on earth.

 

[metis]

You mean this? Pope Francis: 'I prefer a church which is bruised, hurting and dirty'

No, I hadn't heard. Thanks for mentioning it. I love Papa Francesco. We share a namesake. I think he will go down as one of the greatest Popes. We really needed someone like him to remind the Church of its true mission on earth.

Yes, and he also assaulted unbridled capitalism as encouraging too much disparity of wealth and fostering greed.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yes, and he also assaulted unbridled capitalism as encouraging too much disparity of wealth and fostering greed.

Indeed. There have been many pronouncements from the Vatican criticizing out of control global capitalism. The Church has its own economic philosophy called Distributism, which is similar to socialism but they wouldn't call it that because the Church tends to be pretty iffy over that label thanks to the abuses of the various Marxist states towards religious freedom. It's sort of answer to problems in both socialism and capitalism.

Distributism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for me, personally, I'm a socialist, as you can see from my avatar.

 

[metis]

Indeed. There have been many pronouncements from the Vatican criticizing out of control global capitalism. The Church has its own economic philosophy called Distributism, which is similar to socialism but they wouldn't call it that because the Church tends to be pretty iffy over that label thanks to the abuses of the various Marxist states towards religious freedom. It's sort of answer to problems in both socialism and capitalism.

Distributism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for me, personally, I'm a socialist, as you can see from my avatar.

In your experience, what fraction of Catholics share your leanings on this? With us Jews, there's a lot, let me tell ya.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

In your experience, what fraction of Catholics share your leanings on this? With us Jews, there's a lot, let me tell ya.

A large amount. It's pretty popular in South America, due to liberation theology (the belief that Christ came to uplift the poor and other oppressed peoples). Some of the more conservative figures in the clergy don't like it and try to suppress it, but the tradition still lives on. There's been various clergy and lay members who were important figures in Christian socialism and Christian communism.

Liberation theology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Christian communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Christian socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Christian anarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course, Dorothy Day was an important proponent of Christian socialism as well as Christian anarchism, and she's on her way to Sainthood: Dorothy Day - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pope Francis is said to be at least somewhat sympathetic to liberation theology and recently met with one of the prime thinkers of the movement: http://ncronline.org/news/theology/pope-meets-liberation-theology-pioneer

The conservative corners of the Church are wary of anything resembling Marxism due to the abuses committed by states like the USSR. That has led the Church to side at times with right-wing regimes that didn't threaten clerical power, which was a big mistake in hindsight. But left-wing Catholicism is still very much a force to be reckoned with. I hope that eventually the more conservative parts of the hierarchy come to the understanding that not all forms of socialism, communism and anarchism are a threat to Catholicism. Some forms are extremely compatible with Christianity and closer to the message that Christ preached. I view capitalism, especially in its current form in America, as evil and I don't see how a Christian could support it in good conscience.

I have also noticed that the Jewish people tend to be pretty progressive, politically. That is a wonderful thing.

 

[metis]

A large amount. It's pretty popular in South America, due to liberation theology (the belief that Christ came to uplift the poor and other oppressed peoples). Some of the more conservative figures in the clergy don't like it and try to suppress it, but the tradition still lives on. There's been various clergy and lay members who were important figures in Christian socialism and Christian communism.

Liberation theology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Christian communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Christian socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Christian anarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course, Dorothy Day was an important proponent of Christian socialism as well as Christian anarchism, and she's on her way to Sainthood: Dorothy Day - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The conservative corners of the Church are wary of anything resembling Marxism due to the abuses committed by states like the USSR. That has led the Church to side at times with right-wing regimes that didn't threaten clerical power, which was a big mistake in hindsight. But left-wing Catholicism is still very much a force to be reckoned with. I hope that eventually the more conservative parts of the hierarchy come to the understanding that not all forms of socialism, communism and anarchism are a threat to Catholicism. Some forms are extremely compatible with Christianity and closer to the message that Christ preached. I view capitalism, especially in its current form in America, as evil and I don't see how a Christian could support it in good conscience.

Actually, I'm very familiar with liberation theology, but thanks for the links. One of the most awe inspiring conversations I had was with a priest from El Salvador who was the priest of the two nuns and lay ministers murdered by pro-government assassins in the 1980's. We got so wrapped up in our discussion that we actually skipped a meeting we were supposed to attend. He invited me to come down and spend a summer with his group, but I couldn't because of work.

I also had a friend (she passed away about 5 years ago) who worked with Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers, and I got involved with them for about 10 years. One of my fondest thrills was having a one-on-one conversation with Chavez.

BTW, I'm positive that I was and probably still am on an FBI watch list because of some of the meetings I attended years ago, but I'm really harmless as my main religious hero was Gandhi, which is another story, but I'll spare you that one.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Actually, I'm very familiar with liberation theology, but thanks for the links. One of the most awe inspiring conversations I had was with a priest from El Salvador who was the priest of the two nuns and lay ministers murdered by pro-government assassins in the 1980's. We got so wrapped up in our discussion that we actually skipped a meeting we were supposed to attend. He invited me to come down and spend a summer with his group, but I couldn't because of work.

I also had a friend (she passed away about 5 years ago) who worked with Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers, and I got involved with them for about 10 years. One of my fondest thrills was having a one-on-one conversation with Chavez.

BTW, I'm positive that I was and probably still am on an FBI watch list because of some of the meetings I attended years ago, but I'm really harmless as my main religious hero was Gandhi, which is another story, but I'll spare you that one.

That's awesome.

I think that if more Christians actually did research into socialism, communism and anarchism instead of going by what the media says, they might find that they are perfectly compatible with Christianity. Too many people still associate socialism and communism with the USSR and China and that's just ignorant. I personally don't like Marxism but I can see that it holds some truth. I am annoyed by anti-religion Marxists.

It's like how I can support the leftists when it came to the Spanish Civil War but not their abuses of the Church. Same with the French Revolution; it had a good aim but messed up when it became extremist and terrorist. That was just disgusting. We must be careful not to alienate possible allies, of which there are many in various religions.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Really? I blame the status quo primarily on you lefties, especially your Democrats.

There's been one side in this healthcare debate that has been adament we return to the status quo....and it ain't the democrats.

This mess of endless wars, crony capitalism, bloated nanny state, & Obamacare is primarily your party's work

No it hasn't. I'm shocked you could even part your lips to utter such nonsense. Like I've said before - All hands are dirty but it was Bush and friends who fed us false information and ultimately lied us into two unfunded wars. It was Bush's unfunded Medicare Part D that greased the pockets of big pharma. Many in the Republican party get their "kicks"from big oil, big pharma and big insurance....And don't think for one moment I'm singling out Repubs...many Dems suckle the corporate teet as well. And there's no such thing as my party being responsible for the nanny state. Many of these laws that went into effect stared with bypartisan support.....and as of today..a vast majority of people on welfare and other public assistance programs are from staes that vote heavily red. Many of the states that get back more from the feds than what they give are red states...

Libertarians are quite powerless.

Your party is powerless for a reason. I'm not sure you've figured out why.

I bet you can't even name one of us in power off the top'o your head.

Your party has had only a hand full in politicians throughout the country in low level local races/office over the years. Even so...you'r party has trouble getting a Librtarian elected into office in the most redest of districts in the most redest of states.

 

[Revoltingest]

There's been one side in this healthcare debate that has been adament we return to the status quo....and it ain't the democrats.

I'm looking at the larger status quo, one which makes Obamacare less feasible.

No it hasn't. I'm shocked you could even part your lips to utter such nonsense. Like I've said before - All hands are dirty but it was Bush and friends who fed us false information and ultimately lied us into two unfunded wars.

And the first thing your party did when Obama won was continue the Bush agenda.
I believe that once again you're imagining this to be a Pub vs Dem competition.
I see it more as a small minority of us against both of your parties.

It was Bush's unfunded Medicare Part D that greased the pockets of big pharma. Many in the Republican party get their "kicks"from big oil, big pharma and big insurance....And don't think for one moment I'm singling out Repubs...many Dems suckle the corporate teet as well. And there's no such thing as my party being responsible for the nanny state. Many of these laws that went into effect stared with bypartisan support.....and as of today..a vast majority of people on welfare and other public assistance programs are from staes that vote heavily red. Many of the states that get back more from the feds than what they give are red states...

I agree.
Both parties are at fault.
But you guys have been in charge for half a decade now, & it's high time to take a lion's share of the culpability.

Your party is powerless for a reason. I'm not sure you've figured out why.

Figured it out? Hah! I'm the one who educated you on our being extremist losers (not that it wasn't obvious to most). We scare the social conservatives, the slackers suckling on gov's teat, the power hungry Vogons, meddling social engineers, the economic micro-managers, the theocratists, the drug warriors, etc, etc. And we have really poor social skills.

Your party has had only a hand full in politicians throughout the country in low level local races/office over the years.

See! You can't blame us for your government's massive & pervasive failures.
But I'm just having fun responding to your ludicrous accusation that Libertarians are worsening things.
The only thing we ruin is our own dreams of political success.
Long ago I ditched the illusion that we'd ever matter.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I'm looking at the larger status quo, one which makes Obamacare less feasible.

I and other Democrats opt for UH of Single Payer. The ACA is not but while many of us have our issues with the ACA it is far better than the status quo.

And the first thing your party did when Obama won was continue the Bush agenda.
I believe that once again you're imagining this to be a Pub vs Dem competition.
I see it more as a small minority of us against both of your parties.

All Presidents continue many of the things inherited from former Presidents. Don't think for one moment that I've condone all of Obama's policies because I don't. I do recognize that when this administration came in many of the Bush policies that had little oversight were given more oversight and there some of the programs and techniques in the Bush administration that were not adopted by this administration. I don't see it as pub vs. dem......I just don't see the viability in your party to matter. This may be more to do with your party's inability gain public support.

I agree.
Both parties are at fault.
But you guys have been in charge for half a decade now, & it's high time to take a lion's share of the culpability.

While it's true we control the Senate and the Presidency..we've hardly been in charge. Much of this president's agenda has been stopped in the House and filibustered in the Senate. Anything passed was with bipartisan support out of the Senate and the House with the president's signature....I hardly see that as being in charge.

See! You can't blame us for your government's massive & pervasive failures.

I never tried to. You just don't matter enough as a party for me to care.

But I'm just having fun responding to your ludicrous accusation that Libertarians are worsening things.

Never said you did. I called attention to the (Libertarian and Republican) free market mantra...tis all.

The only thing we ruin is our own dreams of political success.
Long ago I ditched the illusion that we'd ever matter.

Me too...

 

[Revoltingest]

All Presidents continue many of the things inherited from former Presidents.

This sentence suggests that continuance is inevitable. But no, it's a choice.
Obama had the ability to end the wars immediately, to stop the rush to citizen
surveillance, to end don't-ask-don't-tell by fiat, etc. He consciously chose his path.

Don't think for one moment that I've condone all of Obama's policies because I don't.

Oh, I know. But it's much more fun to closely tie you to Obama.
Besides, you did vote for him. (I know...I watched.)

I do recognize that when this administration came in many of the Bush policies that had little oversight were given more oversight and there some of the programs and techniques in the Bush administration that were not adopted by this administration. I don't see it as pub vs. dem......I just don't see the viability in your party to matter. This may be more to do with your party's inability gain public support.

If you agree that my party is feckless, then your argument that we're blocking your nanny state evaporates, bub.

While it's true we control the Senate and the Presidency..we've hardly been in charge. Much of this president's agenda has been stopped in the House and filibustered in the Senate. Anything passed was with bipartisan support out of the Senate and the House with the president's signature....I hardly see that as being in charge.

Being in charge doesn't mean you automatically get your way.
Perhaps fortunately, Democratic leadership has been weak. This cannot be blamed on Publicans.

I never tried to. You just don't matter enough as a party for me to care.

Of course you don't care about us.
SpluuUUuuh! We're the enemy.
Btw, I'm not a Libertarian because I expect to win power.
I just cannot be one of you in the Big Two.

Never said you did. I called attention to the (Libertarian and Republican) free market mantra...tis all.

I inferred more from your post....

As long as you have Libertarians (using the word very lightly) and Republicans shaking their fist and screaming about "big gub'ment"....while partaking of said big gub'ment....we'll continue to see more of the status quo...let the free markets solve our woes.....

Our screaming cannot be heard over your screaming "Gimme, gimme, gimme!".

 

[Ablaze]

I've always believed that healthcare should be a right given to everyone simply because we're all human. Yet throughout this whole ACA thing I've been hearing opponents talk about healthcare as a "benefit" or worse yet a "privilege" as if it's something that should be "earned".

Seriously? We're not talking about a christmas bonus or being able to move into a bigger house. We're talking about people's lives here. I could understand people being against it because they think it will be less effective than our current system or far to costly to maintain (both of which are bogus as has been constantly shown, but that's not what this thread is about). But to be against universal coverage because you consider healthcare a benefit or privilege? That just seems so... heartless to me. Is it just me? Has anyone else come across this? Can any of those who favor it offer any justification?

Agreed. Health and the resources (heathcare) necessary to preserve and restore it should come at no cost. When a person's life is at stake, the inability to pay is no excuse to simply let them deteriorate. No price can be ascribed to life. Money is a corrupting force.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

A certain minimum level of health care should be considered a basic human right.

In the U.S., we already have the right to the free services of an educator, and a lawyer, if we cannot afford one. By what strange arithmetic should the services of a doctor be considered any less important? And why is it that the right to a doctor is most enthusiastically opposed by the so-called "pro-life" faction of society?

Arguments against the right to basic health care generally fall into one of two categories: (1) heartless, and/or (2) shortsighted. IMHO.

 

[metis]

The pathetic irony is that the inmates at Guantanamo get medical and dental care provided by our government that Republicans don't even want to extend to their fellow Americans in need.

 

[Aquitaine]

No ****, sherlock. Again, you're preaching to the choir. I've acknowledged TO YOU that America spends an insane amount of money on its armed forces.

Indeed you have, hence why I'm perplexed as to why you said you don't want "extreme cuts" - in your words.

Our military isn't a service "rendered" to the American people in the same manner as Medicare and Medicaid.

"Minimal Government, Maximum Freedom"

I don't have to agree with everything that my political party represents. That makes me no less a Libertarian. I've said nothing on this thread that conflicts with Libertarian principles.

We may just have to agree-to-disagree here.

What do you not comprehend about "I support cuts"?

I get that you want 'em, you're just suddenly being very shy about cuts when it's related to the Military. Suddenly, the "Free Market/Minimal Government at all costs!" fades, and almost reverses when it's the Military being discussed. This is the double-standard that irks me with the 2008-born "I'm a Libertarian"arians.

I'm just not going to throw labels around like "extreme"

You are aware that I'm using the word "extreme" because that's the very word you used to describe what you did not want. See here:

"At times, I do consider my local economy when voting. We have one of the highest concentrations of military in the world here in my area. I don't want our economy to buckle due to extreme military cut backs. But at the same time, I don't support excess spending in this arena either."

when I'd like to examine what extreme cuts would look like and how they would impact Americans before voting in favor of them, just as I'd like to see a universal healthcare proposal before rejecting it on a ballot.

Ah, see you're choice of words interest me: you'd like to examine a UH proposal, before you go ahead and automatically reject it. Fair enough. For the record, I'm not actually arguing that the Free Market/Minimal Government way is necessarily bad, I just don't understand the blatant double-standard that is applied when the USAF is involved.

Suddenly - as if by magic - a lot of these "I'm a Libertarian"arians are perfectly happy with BIG GUBERMINT then!

Make sense?

Yup! You're willing to abandon your "Libertarian values" of 'Minimal Government, Maximum Free Market, Maximum Freedom' when it's the Military, in order not to damage your State's Economy.

After all, you're thinking about your local economy/family etc. So it actually would make sense that you're willing to diversify your political/economic views, depending on what serves your personal and local interests.

And no, I'm not one of these people saying you're being "selfish" or whatever. I already acknowledge that self-interest dictates most of our behaviour. I just wish you'd spare me the lecture on your "Libertarian principles and values".

Yeah...I know...

You're using the term "extreme" cut backs without providing a definition as to what, specifically, that would detail.

As I stated before, I am only using your wording with that:

"At times, I do consider my local economy when voting. We have one of the highest concentrations of military in the world here in my area. I don't want our economy to buckle due to extreme military cut backs. But at the same time, I don't support excess spending in this arena either."

Again, the Commonwealth of Virginia has one of the largest concentrations of military in the country. It would be unwise for me, regardless as to my political affiliation, to not consider my local economy when voting.

Exactly. It would make sense for you to flip-flop depending on how something will affect your local economy/family etc. And no, I wasn't being sarcastic there, I'd just appreciate it if you'd at least acknowledge you flip-flop, rather than banging on about "Free Markets!" and your "Libertarian values and principles".

These aren't anti-Libertarian principles. I'm all for cuts. I want to see excess go.

Right, excess - even the LP website clearly indicates how excessive the USAF currently is:

"The military budget of the United States, conservatively measured at around $700 billion (but probably closer to $1 trillion once all security measures and veteran benefits are considered), is approximately equal to all of the military budgets of all other countries combined. If the US military budget were cut in half, it would still be the largest in the world. Then, if it were cut in half again, it would STILL be the largest in the world. Then, if it were cut in half a third time, reduced to only one-eighth its current size, it would STILL be the largest in the world. And that's using the conservative measure.

Whatever motivates this enormous budget, it is certainly not for the defense of American soil. Indeed, when the Department of Homeland Security was created, this was a virtual admission that the Department of Defense had goals other than homeland security. No foreign army has the slightest capacity to invade the United States, and as North Korea has demonstrated, even the possession of a single nuclear weapon is enough to deter invasion."

There isn't anything anti-Libertarian about wanting "extreme" defined for me. You're throwing terminology out here that we're not using as Americans.

It was you who used that word. However, I'll refrain from showing the quote a 3rd time.

The Libertarian party isn't platforming for "extreme" military cuts. You're reading this yourself.

Really? Sounds to me like they wanna cut it right down, as evidenced by this little gem here:

"If the US military budget were cut in half, it would still be the largest in the world. Then, if it were cut in half again, it would STILL be the largest in the world. Then, if it were cut in half a third time, reduced to only one-eighth its current size, it would STILL be the largest in the world. And that's using the conservative measure."

Explain to me how I'm not in support of:

i: A desire for military cuts?
ii: The Libertarian concept of a smaller military?

One thought and ideal doesn't necessarily negate another.

You appear to want cuts of some sort, but in a NIMBY sort of way.

'Cut the Military......... but just not here in Virginia!' Is what it sounds like to this yellow-toothed, Tea-drinking Limey. :yes:

 

[Reverend Rick]

Our screaming cannot be heard over your screaming "Gimme, gimme, gimme!".

That says it all in a nutshell. People want something for nothing and vote for the folks who promise this.

51% want the other 49% to pay for everything. This is no different than 3 wolves and one sheep voting on whats for dinner.

This is why we are a republic. Thank God!

 

[Sunstone]

That says it all in a nutshell. People want something for nothing and vote for the folks who promise this.

51% want the other 49% to pay for everything. This is no different than 3 wolves and one sheep voting on whats for dinner.

This is why we are a republic. Thank God!

Oh, come on, Rick! Through-out history, even the most savage tribes took care of their own. Would you have us be greater savages than they were?

 

[idav]

That says it all in a nutshell. People want something for nothing and vote for the folks who promise this.

51% want the other 49% to pay for everything. This is no different than 3 wolves and one sheep voting on whats for dinner.

This is why we are a republic. Thank God!

Not really. Just that 95 percent want the 5 percent that have everything to share the wealth in an economy where the haves are becoming an endangered species. The system works when everyone has the same or at least similar opportunity to become huge but starts breaking down as the gap between poor and super rich keeps getting bigger. Now its to a point that only huge monopolies can make it, so companies sell out or get out.