Do you think the government should take care of people with "pre-existing medical conditions?


Besides, if we’'re really using “enough” as a standard, then the Government programs wouldn’t meet that since clearly many people dont get Health care (even if they’re provided “ coverage ” which can give them many month wait for care)

Universal coverage would be a good starting point though. Additionally through universal coverage, you remove the fear of economic insecurity that comes with it. We have Medicaid but its reach doesn’t seem to ensure a basic floor for everyone in America.


My point is, even if you give more people money back from the government, most are going to spend it on themselves rather than on charity.

How many people do you think, in our modern society, actually even believe they get a spiritual benefit from donating? Very few do. Many don’t really believe in spiritual benefits at all. Many also think that just giving to their church is enough even if the church doesn’t care for the poor.

Even among christians I have seen much of the attitude that they shouldn’t give because the poor are just lazy or entitled. Many do not even understand the need; they don’t understand why so many people don’t have health care through their jobs. Or they think conditions like mental health issues aren’t real (part of my reservation with private charity - I’ve seen many people that can’t tell the difference between someone with an invisible issue and a lazy one refusing to work).


I’d like to say a word on charity. Charity is a wonderful thing and even more when it comes from a heart of love which will cover a multitude of sins. It is also spoken of by Christ so many tines I don’t feel it’s necessary to count the ways in which we can be charitable on a Catholic forum.

However, (here it is) there is a bit of teaching within the Church’s writings on Social Justice, notably subsidiarity. This concept is not only applied to government as some think and use within their argument of small government, it is a recipe extends to many aspects of our lives, and we see it in action and may not even realize it.

Example: Could a small local “militia” handle an invasion or attack like the one we saw on 911? Can a local government handle a natural disaster such as hurricane Katrina, or the local fire department get a handle on the California wildfires with hundreds of thousands of acres burned? The federal government has to act when localities cannot, and that is subsidiarity in action.

Can charitable organizations handle all of the 30 million persons with inadequate health insurance and the 44 million without it? Even persons WITH health insurance may have a problem with their private health care organization that rakes in the premiums of millions, if they suffer a chronic expensive condition. And, persons want “charity” to cover it?

I am charity, you are charity, we are charity, and together a Universal Health Care option should be considered. At least we could then acknowledge our tax dollars would be going towards something useful and needed by Americans, millions of Americans to be exact.

It’s rather difficult for persons to consider a “wall” when they can’t afford their blood sugar medication or their inhaler to breath. That’s all I have to say.


Then why is the government going against the will of the people?


President Obama and the Congress that passed the ACA were elected by the people of the United States.

The ACA was not passed “against the will of the people.”


SIngle payer universal health care will cause you to lose freedoms. The government will be in total control.


It was passed in the night, without being even read. Pres Obama’s transparency pledge was disregarded. Remember? “Pass it first then we will see what is in it.”

We knew it was unconstitutional and now a Judge has agreed.


It may be an inconvenience for someone but what if it is a lifeline for others?


It doesn’t matter what time of day it was passed. It was passed by the duly elected representatives of the peole (and remember that, as conservatives here often point out, this is a republic, not a democracy). Was the vote in the night? I don’t know. But it’s in the Congressional Record. There’s nothing secret about it.

Actually, the Supreme Court ruled that it was, as passed, constitutional. No problem. Congress then removed a key provision of the Act, and now a District Court judge has ruled (in a decision binding only in that district) that without that provision, it is unconstitutional. The District Court’s decision is subject to appeal, and I guarantee you it will be appealed.


No because using the subsidiarity concept you cited , the only area where we need federal government is the 9/11 type example (protecting us from foreign enemies). According to subsidiarity, local private charities (or local governments if one favors govt coverage, but definetly not fed govt) should take care of each poor person in each local area in legitimate need to health care


That is not even close to what the principle of subsidiarity says.

That may be your own personal interpretation of it, and okay, fair enough, but it’s not what the church teaches. At all.

As I posted above, if what you say is true, point us to the Church’s condemnation of the national health insurance (or care) systems of most of the developed nations of the world.


I can die peacefully now. I have heard it all.


The 9/11 wasn’t my example, it was in post I replied to and given as example of “subsidiarity in action”. I’m addressing the contention in that post.


First point me to where I said the Church condemns national health insurance


The same version had been passed on Christmas Eve 2009 in the Senate giving them over two months to read it.


You said:

I understood that to mean that you believe that “involuntary contributions” (i.e., taxation) were inconsistent with the teaching of Jesus. Was I wrong?

My point was that if national health insurance, supported by involuntary contributions, i.e., mandatory taxation or contributions to social insurance plans, were indeed inconsistent with the teaching of Jesus, wouldn’t we have heard something to that effect from the Church? After all, the Church does not hesitate to tell us about other things that are “inconsistent” with the teachings of Christ.


Clearly if Jesus thought we should be forced to do good as opposed to choose to do good, he must have plainly stated that in Gospel and I missed it. What Gospel & verse are you looking at?


Off the top of my head, I’m thinking of Rerum Novarum and Centesimus Annus, papal encyclicals.

They’re worth a read.


Both reject socialism and affirm private property rights which tend to support voluntary morality and oppose involuntary forced morality


And both endorse the idea of what they call “social insurance,” which includes health insurance, and retirement insurance (like Social Security) and the like.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit