Minion, no, you can’t make that assumption. But the problem I have with your and the Democrats’ proposals is what constitutes “comfortably afford”. Maybe they can’t “comfortably afford” it. Maybe they’d have to drive used cars instead of brand new SUVs. They might have to sell their house and get an apartment. Maybe the kid they are insuring can donate the $500 that they spent on the latest X-Box toward a month’s insurance.

Maybe it’s time for Americans to make choices between the things they want and the things they need. I know that for my family and I, we cover all of the necessities before we start purchasing luxuries.

If someone has a lot of kids, and they have a poor paying job, I’m all for supplying health insurance to their children. But the family of this boy that the Democrats exploited show in stark relief the problems inherent in this sort of wide reaching wealth re-distribution.

This legislation would insure 6 million kinds, 4 million of who are currently uninsured. I think it’s grossly unfair (and inaccurate) to assume that their parents simply didn’t bother insuring them.

You can’t make that assumption. But let’s look at these parents’ lifestyles. I’m not going to pay for your health care so you can own a 60″ wide screen TV that I can’t afford because I am paying for my own health insurance.

Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow

Ben, the Lord never said: “Mug your neighbor to feed the hungry or provide medical care for the poor”. If Mr. Frost of the half-mil house would like to come over and make his case as to why I ought to help him, he’s welcome to.

MM, I’m basically on your side in this debate here, but I have to say that it seems a bit ludicrous for an anonymous blogger to play the “I’m an authority” card.

You are arguing (i) that Catholics cannot use the law to promote ideals; (ii) a tax is taking resources from an individual by use of violence. (i) is definitely not supported by Catholic social teaching, and (ii) is an extreme libertarianism that is the ugly stepchild of 19th century laissez-faire liberalism.

Not quite. I am arguing that Catholics who use the law to promote ideals are mistaken in thinking they promote a virtuous, much less Christian, society. Charity is a mystical thing – it is a deep expression of love thy neighbor and thy enemy as thyself. When asked for one’s coat, one should give it and much more to the one who asks. One cannot give thy brother’s coat, even if thy brother has many coats. Else, when the wealthy man asked Christ how to obtain salvation, Christ would have responded, “My apostles will take what you have and give to the poor, who are more needy than thyself, and since you have no absolute right to that wealth anyway.”

Income tax (in this instance, to fund SCHIP) which redistributes wealth is a species of force, nothing more. If I refuse to pay for SCHIP, I am taken into court, I am charged, I am fined. Therefore, if the sole reason I pay that tax is that I am afraid otherwise I will be so treated, then I have gained nothing for my soul, and those who pushed for such taxation have done nothing for my virtue, have not converted me, have not shown me Christ. The majority of taxpayers would pay taxes willingly (road repair, fire departments, etc.) for some reasons, but unwillingly for others.

My point is that those who perceive they are achieving some Christian end by funding social projects at the expense of others who are unwilling are mistaken.

From the Compendium:

c. Rights and duties

156. Inextricably connected to the topic of rights is the issue of the duties falling to men and women, which is given appropriate emphasis in the interventions of the Magisterium. The mutual complementarities between rights and duties — they are indissolubly linked — are recalled several times, above all in the human person who possesses them.[322] This bond also has a social dimension: “in human society to one man’s right there corresponds a duty in all other persons: the duty, namely, of acknowledging and respecting the right in question”.[323] The Magisterium underlines the contradiction inherent in affirming rights without acknowledging corresponding responsibilities. “Those, therefore, who claim their own rights, yet altogether forget or neglect to carry out their respective duties, are people who build with one hand and destroy with the other”.[324]

166. The demands of the common good are dependent on the social conditions of each historical period and are strictly connected to respect for and the integral promotion of the person and his fundamental rights[349]. These demands concern above all the commitment to peace, the organization of the State’s powers, a sound juridical system, the protection of the environment, and the provision of essential services to all, some of which are at the same time human rights: food, housing, work, education and access to culture, transportation, basic health care, the freedom of communication and expression, and the protection of religious freedom[350]. Nor must one forget the contribution that every nation is required in duty to make towards a true worldwide cooperation for the common good of the whole of humanity and for future generations also[351].

I guess it shows how far I still have to go before approaching these things from a truly (Catholic) Christian perspective.

Don’t rights generally impose negative duties (i.e. not to kill, not to confiscate my property, not to interfere with my family) rather than positive duties? Maybe I’ve imbibed overmuch at the liberal well.

I apologize for voicing my complaint through the wrong channel.

1930 Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy.36 If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church’s role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims.

But I could certainly benefit from more elaboration on the topic. I guess I’ll take a look at the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church too.