How NOT to help the poor

[Mom2Alex]

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.

 

[razzelflabben]

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.

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.

 

[faerieevaH]

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.

 

[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.

 

[WarriorAngel]

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.

 

[Veritas]

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.

 

[AMDG]

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.

 

[D'Ann]

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

 

[Joachim]

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.

 

[Joachim]

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.

 

[D'Ann]

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.

Fish... we don't need big government programs. We need people helping people. We don't need the government buying into the bank business, the insurance business or the car industry. We need government to run the government and not tax us all to death. The more business that the government buys into, the more tax money we all are required to pay... and quite frankly, most people's pay checks are not that much and we can't afford to keep paying for big government programs that do not help the poor or give the poor jobs. The big government programs only help the politicians. They do not help me or others in my shoes.

We all are poor in one way or another. That being said, it has always been and always will be the privately owned charity groups and neighborhood folks helping each other that will make the difference. It won't be this big government and it's high taxes. It won't be the politicians and their socialistic idealogies... it will be the people who reach out to the people...

Because guess what... people do care about each other. We do care about the poor, the hungry, the homeless, the disable and the elderly and sickly and terminal ill folks. It is the PEOPLE who make the difference, not big government, not politicians, not giving out money to people who abuse the government while the government goes after the workers for more tax dollars...

Higher taxes is not the answer... big government is not the answer. It's day to day people helping hand n hand with each other... that will and is the difference... and until we all stop relying on the politicians and government to do what we all should be doing ourselves... we will continue to suffer and our economy will continue to decline... and if we are not careful, we might end up in a horrible depression that will make the 20s/30s depression look like a cake walk.

Some like the government freebies... but most of us like working and supporting ourselves and taking care of families and we like the feeling of taking care of our family. Most of us are hard working honest citizens. And we want that integrity and honor back. The government and politicians can't give that to us, only we can. Big government and high taxes is not going to help the poor in the long run.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Name one that has not occurred in a command economy or under a totalitarian regime.

Canada, France, and the United Kingdom have universal health care, 100%. Everyone gets care. In the UK, they will even reimburse you for your bus fare when you leave a hospital.

Now, people are going to whine and moan about wait times and so forth, but let me tell you something. I used to answer phones at a doctor's office and got a good feel for the doctors I scheduled and the specialists and so and so forth. There are wait times in the US today, too. The difference is, in the US, a lot of people don't get medical care at all, in countries with universal health care, everyone gets care eventually.

[This is an aggregate response, I saw several folks basically had the same question/challenge, so I figured I'd just reply once.]

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.

You're going on individual accounts and so forth. I don't doubt that some of these accounts are true, but they aren't the norm. Scientific studies and polling show the truth -- which is that, a few exceptions aside, people are generally happier, overall and on average, in places where they have a secure social safety net, even when taxes are very high. Psychology backs this up -- it's much harder to reach for the higher more abstract things when you are worried about where your food is coming from tomorrow.

It's not that wealth makes people happy, it doesn't. It can even be a burden. But meeting people's basic needs gives them the security they need to ponder what'll reallly make them happy and pursue it with more zeal.

 

[Joachim]

Canada, France, and the United Kingdom have universal health care, 100%. Everyone gets care. In the UK, they will even reimburse you for your bus fare when you leave a hospital.

Now, people are going to whine and moan about wait times and so forth, but let me tell you something. I used to answer phones at a doctor's office and got a good feel for the doctors I scheduled and the specialists and so and so forth. There are wait times in the US today, too. The difference is, in the US, a lot of people don't get medical care at all, in countries with universal health care, everyone gets care eventually.

How do you sue for malpractice in a country where the government is the health care provider?

 

[benedictaoo]

well if you think about it Mom, If we pass the responsibility off on the government then we are free to spend our money on trash and not give the poor a second thought.

This is a pseudo charity. it's not charity at all.

I'm glad we have preist who are speaking out to keep us all focused on how the Church really views this issue. It's not how others would have us believe.

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.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Fish... we don't need big government programs. We need people helping people.

People have helped people since the beginning of time. It's never worked to same degree it works when the government has done it in some western European nations today. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't help people, or that it's stopped in Europe, they should help people, and it hasn't stopped in Europe. The point is that we need the government to be involved and to step up into the plate in addition to average everyday folks doing it if we are serious about getting health care to everyone and alleviating poverty.

Now, on the other hand, if we don't actually care if these problems get addressed in the most effective way, and are more concerned about just giving people the opportunity to do feel good about themselves or not by helping or not individually, then we can leave the government out of it. But the real answer to these problems is governmental involvement, plus individuals continuing to help as they always have at the same time.

and if we are not careful, we might end up in a horrible depression that will make the 20s/30s depression look like a cake walk.

The Great Depression was caused by President Hoover's inaction and failure to regulate and get involved in the economy. Basically, he did exactly what you are suggesting we do now, and exactly what caused some of the current mess in the first place under the latest President from Hoover's party, President Bush.

Big government and high taxes is not going to help the poor in the long run.

They do in parts of Europe. And in places like Sweden, with it's huge government programs and 2/3s taxation rate, the public wildly approves of things, and is statistically shown to be one of the happiest populations of any nation on earth.

 

[Fish and Bread]

How do you sue for malpractice in a country where the government is the health care provider?

You sue the doctor, who is actually the one responsible in most cases.

There also may be some legal remedy against the government itself in cases of malpractice, depending on how single-payer health care is enacted legislatively. The courts do allow law suits against the government in certain cases.

 

[canukian]

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.

question:
does giving money to a crackhead help?

 

[Fish and Bread]

well if you think about it Mom, If we pass the responsibility off on the government then we are free to spend our money on trash and not give the poor a second thought.

This is a pseudo charity. it's not charity at all.

That is a horrible way of looking at things. It gives people the impression that you'd rather allow more suffering in the world just so people give more thought to it, rather than actually alleviating the suffering.

 

[AMDG]

So now - i wonder - if a doctor makes a huge mistake and it is government run - can we sue?

Ooo-ooo-ooo! Can I answer? If it's like the military, you have to first ask permission. If the answer comes back "yes", prepare for a battle that will take years and intimidation like you wouldn't believe.

But figuring that if we get national health care, all the doctors will be in the government's pocket so the whole thing becomes moot--no other doctor would dare give a second opinion (especially one that didn't agree with his employer--he knows "which side his bread is buttered" so the poor patient get's the "short end of the stick".)

 

[D'Ann]

well if you think about it Mom, If we pass the responsibility off on the government then we are free to spend our money on trash and not give the poor a second thought.

This is a pseudo charity. it's not charity at all.

I'm glad we have preist who are speaking out to keep us all focused on how the Church really views this issue. It's not how others would have us believe.

Exactly Amen