| One Bread, One Body - Catholic A forum open to Christians to discuss various Catholic beliefs and issues. |
 | | 
21st May 2009, 02:01 PM
|  | In Christ
42      
| | Join Date: 19th July 2008 Location: +Diocese of Buffalo, NY
Posts: 901
Blessings: 73,340 My Mood 
Reps: 872,652,854,295 (power: 872,652,858) | | | How NOT to help the poor
A blog entry and video will hopefully make us all close our mouths -- and think about it a bit. Video: How Not to Help the Poor | Fallible Blogma - A Catholic social commentary
I am sick and tired of being vilified (by a select few) for saying that what is being done by the government and what changes have been proposed have not and will not work.
__________________
"I tell you, on the day of judgment people will render an account for every careless word they speak. By your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned." Jesus, Matthew 12
"We do not want a religion which is right where we are right. We want a religion which is right where we are wrong."--G.K. Chesterton
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
21st May 2009, 02:31 PM
| | Contributor
51  
| | Join Date: 8th November 2003 Location: Ohio
Posts: 14,003
Blessings: 1,609,251
Reps: 276,368,692,710,980,192 (power: 276,368,692,711,003) | | Originally Posted by Mom2Alex 
got to agree, what really should pierce each of our hearts, ring true in each of our ears, is that helping anyone, whether poor, sick, or just grieving, is about getting involved, just like God commands us. when we invest ourselves in the lives of others, we have a vested interest in their success.....
Edit: opps, catholic thread, sorry guys, I keep forgetting to check that first. |
21st May 2009, 04:29 PM
|  | lucky wife
35  
| | Join Date: 27th December 2003 Location: USA
Posts: 11,244
Blessings: 388,373
Reps: 889,119,283,581,404 (power: 889,119,283,601) | | | I don't think it is an either or thing. I personally like a government lead health care system. I come from a country where it works and works well. But that does not mean that it excempts me from volunteering which I do too. While I believe that people who speak up against government spending on these programs often do get unjustified replies of 'not caring', it is also so that people who do believe that some of these projects can work often get the accusation of not wanting to dirty their own hands, or just wanting 'big government' to take care of them.
Many of them sacrificed other things (like a second car) to be able to afford the hybrid that the author scoffs about, because they believe it is ultimately better for our planet. Some of them (not all, like not everyone who does not believe in government programs goes out every week to help in a soup kitchen or bring food to a needy widow) offer their time as well to help in projects, programs and try to connect with their families and others around. The best thing in all these matters is not to let opinions polarize people in 'us and them'. If you believe in one thing, you are not necessarily convinced of the other.
__________________
Be soft of voice, and gentle of bearing... |
21st May 2009, 04:48 PM
|  | Senior Contributor
29  
 | | Join Date: 1st February 2005 Location: PA
Posts: 10,348
Blessings: 58,313
Reps: 80,194,829,495,992,928 (power: 80,194,829,496,010) | | The truth is that the private sector has proven to be inefficient at some things that the government has proven to be efficient at. Governments around the world have shown that you can provide health care to every single person, something that the private sector has never been able to do in all of human history, and since health care is a basic human right, recognized by the Vatican (cf Pacem en Terris), I think there is a moral obligation to make sure people have health care by means that work. Governments have also shown that you can provide a minimal pension to the elderly, and get it everyone who is elderly, something non-governmental organizations have never achieved a 100% success rate at in all of human history.
There will always be a role for private charity. Even if we did what I feel is our moral imperative -- made sure that everyone has the basics of food, clothing, shelter, and health care -- there would always be some with more who could give things to those with less, that those with less would undoubtly appreciate. Moreover, we won't reach the point that I'd like to see us reach anyhow, at least not in the United States, because I am to the left of the Democratic Party on economics and *way* to the left of the Republican Party on economics, and they are the only two big parties, so they'll always be people who fall through the cracks for folks to help.
People can and should help individually, but that is not as excuse to abdicate our collective responsibility to the poor as a society.
By the way, studies consistently show the happiest people in the world live in the countries that are some of the most taxed and have the largest social safety nets. I think the specific example I heard cited was either Norway or Sweden, where the average person pays about 2/3s of their income in taxes (Which goes to fund a strong social safety net), and yet international polling shows that people in that country are on average the happiest in the world or close to it on a consistent basis. The US doesn't even rank in the top 10.
When you free people up from basic concerns like will they be starving to death on the streets if things take a wrong turn for them, it gives them the peace of mind to be able to really pursue their dreams and focus on higher things. That's actually a basic scientific psychological principle -- google Maslov's hiearchy of needs if you aren't sure what I am saying is accurate. 
__________________
|
21st May 2009, 05:16 PM
|  | Eat my shorts
| | Join Date: 11th April 2005
Posts: 46,600
Blessings: 73,433,962 My Mood 
Reps: 1,417,180,419,257,275,392 (power: 1,417,180,419,257,328) | | | The private sector promoted 'opportunity' and 'advancements' in health care.
Where there is little chance to thrive financially, there is little chance for motivation.
The only thing wanting in the private sector was anyone being allowed to sue a doctor for a stray nosehair....etc.
That's why expenses went up. Doctors must pay for million dollar insurance so they IF they sued for something the insurance company will pay up.
BUT their costs for insurance are ridiculous.
So now - i wonder - if a doctor makes a huge mistake and it is government run - can we sue?
Probably not.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Matthew Chapter 7 7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened." |
21st May 2009, 05:35 PM
|  | 1 Lord, 1 Faith, 1 Baptism
| | Join Date: 7th August 2003 Location: Pacific NW USA
Posts: 10,433
Blessings: 175,565 My Mood
Reps: 432,640,816,575,563,648 (power: 432,640,816,575,582) | | Originally Posted by Fish and Bread The truth is that the private sector has proven to be inefficient at some things that the government has proven to be efficient at. Governments around the world have shown that you can provide health care to every single person, something that the private sector has never been able to do in all of human history, and since health care is a basic human right, recognized by the Vatican (cf Pacem en Terris), I think there is a moral obligation to make sure people have health care by means that work. Governments have also shown that you can provide a minimal pension to the elderly, and get it everyone who is elderly, something non-governmental organizations have never achieved a 100% success rate at in all of human history.
There will always be a role for private charity. Even if we did what I feel is our moral imperative -- made sure that everyone has the basics of food, clothing, shelter, and health care -- there would always be some with more who could give things to those with less, that those with less would undoubtly appreciate. Moreover, we won't reach the point that I'd like to see us reach anyhow, at least not in the United States, because I am to the left of the Democratic Party on economics and *way* to the left of the Republican Party on economics, and they are the only two big parties, so they'll always be people who fall through the cracks for folks to help.
People can and should help individually, but that is not as excuse to abdicate our collective responsibility to the poor as a society.
By the way, studies consistently show the happiest people in the world live in the countries that are some of the most taxed and have the largest social safety nets. I think the specific example I heard cited was either Norway or Sweden, where the average person pays about 2/3s of their income in taxes (Which goes to fund a strong social safety net), and yet international polling shows that people in that country are on average the happiest in the world or close to it on a consistent basis. The US doesn't even rank in the top 10.
When you free people up from basic concerns like will they be starving to death on the streets if things take a wrong turn for them, it gives them the peace of mind to be able to really pursue their dreams and focus on higher things. That's actually a basic scientific psychological principle -- google Maslov's hiearchy of needs if you aren't sure what I am saying is accurate.
We've been through this many times before, F&B. The private sector is 10 times more efficient at virtually everything as compared government. Everything you've stated is just a utopian dream. It doesn't exist. Happines is not a byproduct of having your material needs met. Happiness comes from a meaningful life and fulfilling relationships. And governement cannot provide either of those. Government can't love you. All those statistics about what countries citizens are the happiest are based on skewed questions that throw weight toward socialism. Btw, if you really believe they are happier, maybe you should immigrate. Happiness would be yours.
Most people who volunteer in very poor counties where the idea of social welfare is just a dream, report that some of the happiest people they've ever met were the poor. Ask yourself why.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
For he will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways. Psalm 91:11
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
21st May 2009, 06:01 PM
|  | Tenderized for Christ
62
| | Join Date: 24th May 2004 Location: Pacific Northwest, United States
Posts: 13,472
Blessings: 10,279,412
Reps: 624,627,125,370,130,432 (power: 624,627,125,370,151) | | Originally Posted by Fish and Bread The truth is that the private sector has proven to be inefficient at some things that the government has proven to be efficient at.
The government has proven to be efficient?!!! And now we are talking health care?!!!  Well it's obvious that you have never had government health care (in either in the way of U.S. military care or the U.S. medical coupon program not to mention the rationing or waiting of other national health care)!
And besides that, for the government to be-all, end-all for everyone is violating the Catholic principle of subsidiary. I can see it now--at the Last Judgement when the Lord asks what we have done for our neighbor, we get to answer "Nothing because my government does it all and they're more efficient at it too." And just think, no need to teach the Corporal or Spiritual Acts of Mercy because (you guessed it) the government does it all, and more efficiently too. No sense in given to charity since the government... And I guess we'll be doing away with Confirmation community or Eagle Scout projects too since with a "leave it to the government" there will be no charitable acts for left to do.
Unbelievable.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"There is one true Church, the really ancient Church into which are enrolled those who are righteous according to God's ordinance. In essence, in idea, in origin, in preeminence we say that the ancient Catholic Church is the only Church." - Clement of Alexandria, Stromata
--------------------------------------------------------------
" Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live." - Deuteronomy 30:19
Team Sarah!--A diverse coalition of women dedicated to values that Sarah Palin stands for
Life Trumps the Economy EVERY TIME! |
21st May 2009, 06:11 PM
|  | Catholic... Faith, Hope and the greatest is LOVE
| | Join Date: 28th October 2004
Posts: 42,480
Blessings: 32,977,067 My Mood 
Reps: 278,637,546,695,412,352 (power: 278,637,546,695,462) | | Here are some quotes that I really liked a lot from the article (I liked the article and the video:
We have big challenges with helping the poor in our country and around the world. This video (below) shares some thoughtful insights as to how and how not to do that effectively.
There is no question that virtually everyone, no matter which political party they support, wants to help the poor. Just because somebody may think there is a different or better way to help the poor than you, does not mean they don’t care about the poor.
I get this kind of stuff all the time. I believe a big government is ultimately bad for us. I think it is ultimately less and less effective. I believe it breeds corruption and waste. I think it’s one of the absolute worst ways to help the poor. But when I don’t support a big government politician who supports more spending on health care, education, etc. somehow I’m then accused of not caring about those things. But that’s illogical. I just don’t believe more spending on those things is going to help the problem. And it hasn’t. It seems that many of us want to live in elite neighborhoods, drive fancy hybrid cars, socialize in exclusive circles, and donate a few bucks to worthy causes and then feel good about “helping the poor” when we vote for some politician every few years that promises to do so on our behalf. Like that’s fulfilling our moral obligation to help those in need.
That sure would be nice if that worked. But it doesn’t. We just like to convince ourselves of that so we can all have our cake, eat it, and pretend we’ve shared it with some stranger in need that we’ve never met. Then we pat each other on the back and blame any persisting problems on those that opposed some politician, proposition, or policy. They need people. They need someone to listen. They need intact families with mothers and fathers. They need a friend. They need personal relationships to help guide them through their challenges.
I think far too often we leave that kind of stuff to “other” people. But that’s because it’s the hard part. It’s the messy part. It means sacrificing our time and our comfort - not just our money. We can’t wrap it up in a nice clean paper check. It means building real relationships with these people who need us. It means sacrificing a day or two out of our week to spend time with those in need. It means sometimes canceling our poker night, a dinner with friends, a social event, our favorite TV show, or our workout routine and stopping to help somebody around us in need at that very moment.
It’s messy. It’s personal. It’s difficult. But that’s the only way we’re going to ultimately solve these problems.
And we don’t have to travel to Africa to do this. We don’t have to travel to some particularly bad neighborhood. There are people right down the street, and often in our own homes, that need our help. And they aren’t necesssarily physically poor. Some of the worst poverty, especially in America, is wrapped up in big houses, masked in a busy schedule and carted around in fancy cars.
Amen Alex2mom
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Where Peter is, there is the Church. Where the Church is, there is eternal Life.
"The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society"- Mother Theresa
"But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion?
As always, we must persuade her with love, and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even his life to love us. So the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love - that is, to give until it hurts... her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts. By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems.
And by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion". - Mother Theresa
|
21st May 2009, 06:14 PM
|  | The flag is a protest for state flags
| | Join Date: 15th January 2009 Location: Bob Riley is my governor
Posts: 1,929
Blessings: 73,846
Reps: 9,798,741,679,404 (power: 9,798,741,684) | | Originally Posted by WarriorAngel
The only thing wanting in the private sector was anyone being allowed to sue a doctor for a stray nosehair....etc.
No, that's not wanting, that is the U.S. Constitution. It should be pointed out that no court will take a case unless their is a legal grounds for it. By default, a truly frivolous suit is to be recognized as such by a judge and thrown out on its face. If a judge doesn't throw it out upon an initial read, then it is a valid suit. That's why expenses went up. Doctors must pay for million dollar insurance so they IF they sued for something the insurance company will pay up.
BUT their costs for insurance are ridiculous.
The problem is the insurance companies not the lawyers. Take this from someone who saw his hometown destroyed by Hurricane Katrina and what the insurance companies did (never mind that they tried to pull out of areas south of I-10 after Ivan and were stopped by Gary Tanner) to people after that storm. Where I spent my childhood gets desolated and the insurance companies have the unmitigated gall to not pay out the payments. Its even worse when you go west into Mississippi because we know full well that it was a Category 5 at landfall, but because the government lied and said it was a 3, it gave the insurance companies the out to completely ripoff every customer that they had from Mandeville to Alabama Port all the way up into the parts of the city that suffered major damage.
Insurance companies are without a doubt the most evil organizations currently operating in America other than the Klan and the Black Panthers and unlike those two, insurance companies have real power. So now - i wonder - if a doctor makes a huge mistake and it is government run - can we sue?
Probably not.
Why I oppose government run health care and also why the Democratic Party will never bring it in. The primary funding source for the Democratic Party, no matter where it is, comes from plaintiffs attorneys, be they conservative southern democrats or liberal San Francisco socialists. Simply put, business money backs the GOP and so lawyers give their money to where the best impact will be. The only good Republican when it comes to tort issues is Richard Shelby.
Having said that, we will end up have mandatory health insurance that will be subsidized for the poor but we will never have government health care. Simply put, mandatory insurance, malpractice suits continue. Government run health care, they end. Its why I say yes to national insurance, no to national health care. |
21st May 2009, 06:17 PM
| | The flag is a protest for state flags
| | Join Date: 15th January 2009 Location: Bob Riley is my governor
Posts: 1,929
Blessings: 73,846
Reps: 9,798,741,679,404 (power: 9,798,741,684) | | Originally Posted by Fish and Bread The truth is that the private sector has proven to be inefficient at some things that the government has proven to be efficient at.
Name one that has not occurred in a command economy or under a totalitarian regime. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
