Ignoring the Poor
March 3, 2011
Roughly 60,000 people in Wisconsin are going to lose their health care. In contrast, 2,000 homosexual couples, of which 800 resided in Iowa, were granted marriage licenses in Iowa over a 1-year period. Other states in the United States are ripping health care benefits away from people. Likewise, President Obama has declined to further defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the courts. Why is one being practically ignored by Catholic media and bishops? Why will I find people in this combox shortly supporting this ignoring?
Advertisement
60 Comments
Comments are closed.
MZ,
I just don’t think people care about the health of others. I think if confronted, people will give a lot of words to the how’s and why’s of what is being done, and why it is the right thing to do. But when it really comes down to the human side of the issue, the fact is that Americans really are not taken care of in this country. That for people that do not have great coverage, if they get sick with say cancer, it costs to much to treat them. So granted the rich will be treated, and they can afford treatment and they will at least have a shot at getting better. The less fortunate people will most likely just grow sicker and die. It’s so sad this is the way of our country and that we have so many people who willingly accept it. It also saddens me that many people who do have the finances to get treatment for themselves, have such a lack of true concern for their fellow man. I guess as a person, either I fight it, or I resign myself to the idea that this is the way of our world. I just don’t know if fighting it, you have much of a chance when you are up against Fox news, an outfit that gives out mis-information as truth. It’s so hard to even get the truth out there anymore, because it’s always so distorted.
Cindy, My insurance covered all but $3000 of the $184,000 for my cancer treatment last year. You are correct, if I am poor I am dead.
We are selfish individualists and our god is greed regardless of the faith we profess to follow.
I mean not to keep blabbing. (sorry) but did you see this gem? http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/rep-ron-paul-education-is-not-a-right-video.php
This is Ron Paul, stating that education and medical care are not rights but rather “things that you have to earn.” Now here is a man that is garnering more and more support and respect from people. He may make a Presidential run and his son won his Senate seat. Yet he believes things deep down, that I am totally against. We live in a world right now, where people are out to protect their wealth. I mean what is with our world?
My response to Paul is very mixed. On the one hand, I admire and appreciate his distrust of consolidated power, his anti-war stance, and his sincerity. He actually believes what he says, as far as I can tell. As an OB, he wouldn’t accept medicaid, but would delivery babies for free. On the other hand, his conception of rights, social responsibility, and politics generally leaves much to be desired.
The bishops think “the poor are always with us” whereas the push for gay civil unions is something happening just now, it is a kairos, and the bishops must act now or never to “hold the line”. We have seen what a horrible mess they have made of the new liturgical translations, so why should we believe their campaign to prevent loving couples from living together is any less benighted? The bishops are like mighty puffing train engines rushing confidently along the tracks, unaware that the train itself has been left behind in the station.
It costs more to be poor.
For example, Bank of America just instituted a $3/month fee for all checking accounts if you want an *image* of your cancelled checks (not even the real cancelled checks).
Now, for poor people who have computers, and are the most likely to need proof of cancelled payments for things, and who are also more likely to be using real checks that can be misappopriated (so checking the cancelled check for proper endorsement is more necessary) because they don’t have online banking, and who also therefore won’t find online statements very accessible….
This is but a small example. Working as I do in the Society of St Vincent de Paul, I see fees like this *all the time* that don’t apply to the non-poor. The poor get chiselled.
And all we care about is the “middle class”, because there are no rich people (except celebrities) and we don’t want to know about poor people. Especially poor people who we can’t identify with.
Imagine a Lent where we forced ourselves to come to terms with this.
“Why will I find people in this combox shortly supporting this ignoring?”
Because whenever you set the conditions for comments, you will find people taking up either side.
It sounds like you see this discourse as a bad thing. Why?
“The potential move from the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, which could save the state $80 million, comes about in part as a result of federal health care legislation enacted last March. That legislation establishes health exchanges and boosts Medicaid eligibility up to those who earn 133 percent of the federal poverty level as of 2014.
Under Walker’s bill, the Department of Health Services would move to bring state eligibility levels in line with the new federal legislation at 133 percent FPL, equivalent to an annual salary of $14,484 per year for an individual.”
Sounds like Walker is putting Wisconsin’s law in line with Federal law written by a Democratic Congress and signed by Obama. Perhaps I missed the post at that time about how this was ignoring the poor.
Also, it seems that setting eligibility at 133% of Federal Poverty Level is hardly “ignoring the poor.”
So I went to the link, and I read the article. The article doesn’t sound as dire as the headline. Here’s the deal:
Obama’s healthcare bill boosts Medicaid eligibility to those who earn 133% of the federal poverty level. For some reason, Wisconsin currently uses state funds to provide Medicaid to those who earn 200% of the poverty level. And since Wisconsin is facing a million dollar deficit due to Medicaid costs, the plan is to reduce Medicaid eligibility to those who earn 133% of the federal poverty level, which is what the Affordable Care Act does.
Look, I agree health care to the poor is extremely important. But Wisconsin can’t afford its Medicaid costs, so it has to cut somewhere. It doesn’t sound unreasonable to me to cut out those making 2 times the amount of that those officially designated “poor” make. There are such things as health insurance programs for low-income people.
If what Wisconsin is doing is outrageous, maybe M.Z. should be outraged at Obama’s Affordable Care Act, since it doesn’t cover those who earn 200% of the poverty level. And then maybe M.Z. can tell us what should be the level of earning where healthcare costs stop being paid entirely by the government. 250% of the poverty line? 300%? Or more?
I have a relative in Wisconsin who will be losing her health care because of this. She is not on the dole. She works full time at $8/hr. Her employer does not offer health insurance and frankly, I don’t think any potential employer would offer her health insurance. Buying an individual policy is obviously not an option.
I’ve grown tired of those on the Right finding an objection to every possible response to this situation, so let me ask them, how is she supposed to find health care?
Kurt,
I’m sorry for your relative, but suppose the government doesn’t have money to give to your relative. It’s a terrible situation for your relative, but she may have to rely on charity, churches, pro bono medical care, etc.
If you want to make an argument that government should spend money on people like your relative, then that’s fine, but you then need to explain your argument. As I asked M.Z., what should be poverty level line at which we cover healthcare costs? Should it be 200% or 250% or more? If we have the government expand healthcare coverage to people who are 200% of the poverty line, we need to get funds for that somewhere. Would it be all right for the government to cut back on teacher pensions and healthcare programs?
The point is, these are very difficult decisions, and they deserve thoughtful consideration, not knee-jerk responses a la “they’re ignoring the poor”.
Another thought:
Kurt, you might argue that the government can get money from additional taxes. And that’s fine – you then should make that argument. But it makes me wonder whether you and your family members might be able to commit a few dollars a month to your relative, to help her buy health insurance. Then your relative would be taken care of. The alternative is taxes: everyone is forced to commit a few dollars a month extra in taxes to help your relative and the thousands of other people in your relative’s situation. And maybe that’s a fine and adequate solution, maybe our society should be structured that way — but the opposing concern is that with the taxes, money inevitably gets wasted by the fact that the government is there as a middle man between our money and your relative.
Like I said, how to help people like your relative is a difficult situation deserving thoughtful consideration.
Kurt, I’m sorry for your relative
I really don’t think you are. I find your response insulting.
If the Wisconsin Governor’s proposal will go forward, 75% my immediate family members will be without health insurance. I’m already paying for one and do not have the means to take on all of my siblings and their children who are or will be without.
The other option you suggest is that she ask for a hand-out from charity, churches and pro bono.
The Diocese of Madison will give her no such help.
She is an able-bodied adult working full time. She is in her twenties and, like 75% of Americans, without a college degree. It is nonsense to say that private charity could and should pick up health care for that whole strata of our society.
Kurt,
I’m truly not meaning to be insulting. I’ve already said that these are very terrible and sad decisions to make. But my point is a serious one. Put it in the realm of the hypothetical if that is easier to think about: Suppose, hypothetically, the government simply doesn’t have money for your relative. What are her options?
And if you think the government should give money for her costs because the government has the money available (or could get it through taxes, etc), that’s a very reasonable position to take — but I’m just pointing out some of the competing considerations.
Kurt,
How much will you be voluntarily contributing to your relative to help her cover her healthcare costs if this goes through?
Wow.
I’m currently paying for her cousin’s health care and the mortgage for her unemployed mother. I’m paying Catholic school tuition for a nephew but was recently relieved of having to help with college tuition for another nephew as his father (my brother in law) died at age 52 last year, leaving the kid with money from the life insurance.
I’ll do what I have to do.
God bless you. I have a problem with people who expect *others* to pay for those who they know are in need without exercising utmost charity themselves, first. I have eleven siblings and twenty six nieces and nephews. At some time, all have been in need, and we band together as a family and scrimp and save and sacrifice to help each other. We all do the same for anyone of whose need we are aware.
Again I say: God bless you.
Alan,
Keep your blessings, I don’t want them.
I resent your suggestion that my family members are in some temporary status of need.
Save one family member who was recently and unjustly fired, everyone other adult is working full time at phyiscally demanding work.
They are not shirks or welfare queens. They are employed full time and without health insurance.
I really don’t like your insulting comment that my family has its hand out expecting “others” to pay for their health insurance. I think able bodied adults who work full time should have health insurance without folks like you and Thales suggesting they should sit on the street corner with a tin cup pleading for charity.
Thales I will be the first to acknowledge the debt. What I fail to understand is how we can call ourselves a compassionate country when the only answer to our debt is to cut spending and thus, let the burden fall upon the poor, or for that matter, our shrinking middle class.
Where is the social justice of our Church when we cannot tax someone taking home $65 million dollars a year because they do not want to take home just a mere $60 million dollars after taxes because we raised the tax 4%?
How in God’s name can anyone justify knocking more people down to the poverty level while a tiny few engorge themselves?
Aren’t we better off lifting more up? In my book we need to jack up the tax on the top bracket another 15% because trickle down never, ever worked in principle, and we have serious needs now.
We are only as strong as our weakest link.
Going to Wisconsin Health and Human Services and following their website, this is what a below minimum wage mom with one child can access through the state:
FoodShare It looks like your household may be able to get between $310 and $360 to buy food each month.
It looks like you could get FoodShare benefits about a month after you apply.
Keep in mind that some people are not able to get FoodShare benefits, including some people on strike, some immigrants without papers, and some college students. In most cases, their children and other people in the home may still be able to get benefits.
A special note for immigrants: getting FoodShare benefits will not hurt your immigration status.
To get started on applying for FoodShare, click the Next button at the bottom of the page.
Health Care It looks like Susan and Josephp may be able to enroll in the BadgerCare Plus Standard plan.
The BadgerCare Plus Standard plan will pay for most services you get from BadgerCare Plus health care providers. It will also pay for prescriptions (unless you are also getting Medicare). You may have a small co-payment for some services and prescriptions.
It looks like Susan may be able to get confidential, no-cost family planning services. Individuals may be able to get these services even if they already have health insurance.
This program is available to individuals who want birth control supplies and services.
Keep in mind that BadgerCare Plus also covers family planning services. However, you may choose to apply only for family planning services.
A special note for immigrants: getting low- or no-cost health care will not hurt your immigration status. Keep in mind that in some cases, immigrants are only able to get health care in emergencies.
To get started on applying for Health Care, click the Next button at the bottom of the page.
Wisconsin Works
(W-2) It looks like Susan and Josephp might be able to get W-2 cash assistance and help finding a job. Because someone in your household has money from a job, the monthly W-2 payment may be under $673 a month. The amount of money you get will be decided by how many hours you work at your job now. You will also have to participate in activities that will help you get more money from the job now or from a different job.
Keep in mind that you may not be able to get any W-2 cash assistance because someone in your household gets some money from a job. You might be able to get help finding a job that pays more money though.
The W-2 program counts your self-employment money before you subtract business costs. If you told us that someone in your house gets money from self-employment you told us how much money was made after subtracting business costs. Your W-2 worker will help you with this.
Keep in mind that you have to live in Wisconsin to get help from W-2. Also, you have to cooperate with Child Support unless you and your child would be in danger if you did. You also have to either have a Social Security Number or have asked for a Social Security Number for each person applying for W-2.
Assets owned by anyone in the household are counted for W-2. If you own assets worth more than $2,500, you will not be able to get cash assistance.
You may not be able to get W-2 cash assistance if you are not a U.S. citizen or a qualified alien.
To learn more about getting W-2, click the Next button at the bottom of the page.
WIC It looks like Susan and Josephp may be able to get nutrition information and counseling, referrals to health care and checks to buy food through WIC.
For each infant who gets WIC, the average value of the monthly WIC food package is up to $130 each month. For each child who gets WIC, the average value of the monthly WIC food package is $39. For each woman who gets WIC, the average value of the monthly WIC food package is $48.
To get started on applying for WIC, click the Next button at the bottom of the page.
Summer Food It looks like Josephp may be able to get free meals during the summer.
To learn more about getting summer meals for your children, click the Next button at the bottom of the page.
TEFAP It looks like your household may be able to get food at no cost through a food pantry or other location in your area.
To learn more about getting food at no cost, click the Next button at the bottom of the page.
Home Energy Assistance It looks like your household may be able to get help with paying for heat and electricity through the Wisconsin Home Energy Assistance Program (WHEAP). Your local WHEAP agency may also be able to help you with services like keeping your heat from being turned off or fixing a broken furnace.
During the heating season, you may be able to get a total heating benefit of $210 to $321. You may also be able to get a total electricity benefit of $88 to $135. The heating season is from October 1 to May 15.
Keep in mind that only U.S. citizens and legal residents are able to get help from WHEAP.
Tax Credits It looks like Susan may be able to get:
A federal earned income credit of up to $3,050
An additional credit through the state earned income tax credit
A child tax credit of up to $1,000 for each child under 17
The Wisconsin Homestead Tax Credit
The amount of money that may be refunded to you will depend on each person’s exact income, the number of children they claim as dependents, and how much tax they owe.
State Life Insurance Fund It looks like Susan and Josephp may be able to get life insurance through the State Life Insurance Fund by paying the required premium.
To learn more about getting life insurance through this program, click the Next button at the bottom of the page.
It looks like you may not be able to get some programs
Child Care Based on what you told us today, it looks like the people in your home may not be able to get child care. To read more about why, please click the Details button.
If you have questions, click here to learn more about the Child Care Program. Or click here to find your local agency.
Long Term Care Based on what you told us, no one in your home is living in a nursing home or may need to move to a nursing home. As a result, we did not look to see if you might be able to get help with nursing home care or in-home health care. Keep in mind that we only asked about nursing home care if you have someone in your home who is elderly (65 or older), blind or disabled.
If you would like additional information, the best thing to do is to contact your local county/tribal human services agency. Click here to find your local agency.
SeniorCare Based on what you told us today, it looks like no one in your home is 65 or older. This means you won’t be able to get help buying prescription drugs through the SeniorCare program.
If you have questions, click here to learn more about the SeniorCare Program.
Medicare Part D Based on what you told us today, it looks like no one in your home is getting Medicare. As a result, no one in your home will be able to get help with paying for prescription drugs through Medicare.
The rich are better caretakers of the poor than the government ever could be. The poor have to give the rich their money in order for the rich to give the poor jobs at McDonald’s after they lost their jobs at the auto plant. Duh! Who knows? They might even make enough to buy a Big Mac that they make once in a while. And the rich kids can always go there at two in the morning if they have the munchies or something.
Besides, having the poor live in misery is a small price to pay for freedom, and the hope that one day, perhaps far off in the future, but one day, some crumbs will fall from their table and into the “donate” button that I have on my neo-con Catholic blog. Hey, everyone likes their egos stroked, and Catholic bloggers are good at sycophancy.
Hey people, it’s capitalism. The only way this works is if we rob from the poor to give to the rich, or transfer money from one rich guy’s pocket to another. And you can’t object, because to do so would be advocating socialism, and we all know that Jesus doesn’t want us to steal, even if all we are doing is “stealing” back what was stolen in the first place. Usury went from being “contra natura” to being the 8th sacrament. Even the Vatican has a bank.
Just to put the above in context. This minimum wage single mom with one child can get Medicaid. With this health visits, hospitalizations and prescriptions are free. She can get money for child care, through FoodShare money to help with groceries and through Summer Food and TEFAP free food.
She also gets at a minimum $380 per month for heating, electricity and (through WIC) food.
You may not agree with the level of care, but the poor are not being ignored.
And for those without children?
A single person can at that income level can still get Medicaid (free visits, prescriptions, tests, hospitalizations) $290 per month heating and electricity, FoodShare money and free food through TEFAP.
But they won’t be able to if the Walker plan is enacted.
At that level they can. At an above minimum wage they can’t but that’s because of the Affordible Health Care Medicaid limits.
ACA has a floor, not a ceiling.
Now here’s some housing options for our minimum wage single mother:
Public Housing Programs
PIH Programs
Below is a summary of public housing programs within the Office of Public and Indian Housing:
Capital Fund
The Capital Fund provides funds to housing authorities to modernize public housing developments.
Demolition/Disposition
The Demo/Dispo program was created in an effort to help eliminate old, run down public housing.
Homeownership
A Public Housing Authority (PHA) may sell all, or a portion of, a public housing development to eligible residents or resident organizations, for purposes of homeownership, provided that a Homeownership Plan has been submitted by the PHA and has been approved by HUD.
HOPE VI
Since 1993, HOPE VI has been the engine driving the revitalization of the Nation’s most distressed public housing developments by providing grants and unprecedented flexibility to address the housing and social service needs of their residents.
Housing Choice Vouchers (Formerly Section 8)
Allow very low-income families to choose and lease or purchase safe, decent, and affordable privately-owned rental housing.
Moderate Rehabilitation
Provides project-based rental assistance for low income families. The program was repealed in 1991 and no new projects are authorized for development. Assistance is limited to properties previously rehabilitated pursuant to a housing assistance payments (HAP) contract between an owner and a Public Housing Agency (PHA).
Moving to Work Demonstration (MTW)
MTW is a demonstration program that allows housing authorities (Has) to design and test ways to give incentives to families to become economically self-sufficient, achieve programmatic efficiencies, reduce costs, and increase housing choice for low-income households.
Operating Fund
The Public Housing Operating Fund provides operating subsidies to housing authorities (HAs) to assist in funding the operating and maintenance expenses of their own dwellings, in accordance with Section 9 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, as amended. The subsidies are required to help maintain services and provide minimum operating reserves.
Rental Housing Integrity Improvement Project (RHIIP)
Develops and implements plans which address HUD’s high risk rental housing subsidy programs.
Resident Opportunities and Self Sufficiency (ROSS) and Neighborhood Networks (NN)
The ROSS program links services to public housing residents by providing grants for supportive services, resident empowerment activities and activities to assist residents in becoming economically self-sufficient.
Since the discussion is slipping into interpretation of statistics and the meaning of poverty, could we bring it back to MZ’s original question?
If I understand it correctly, it might be translated something like:
I submit that in most cases, the answer reflects the answer-er’s political upbringing and orientation, rather than identification with Christ. The real tragedy of the modern self-identified “Christ-ian” is that allegiance to Lands of Left and Right takes such high precedence.
Upwards of 60,000 people in Wisconsin are going to lose their health insurance. We have some people here claiming they don’t deserve health care anyway. There is no elaborate dichotomy being created here.
Upwards of millions of low-income and middle-income people in the United States are not going to get Medicaid health insurance under the current terms of the Affordable Care Act. We have some people not caring about that fact. There is no elaborate dichotomy being created here.
[The above is tongue-in-cheek, but I'm pointing out that it's not as simple as it might seem.]
The only “millions” of low and moderate income people who will not have health insurance under ACA will be the illegal immigrants. I will be happy to partner with you on that cause.
As noted above, the reason those 60,000 in Wisconsin are losing health care benefits is because of the income qualification in the Affordible Care Act. So the problem is not just for illegal immigrants. And the ACA was written by the Dems and signed by Obama.
To that end, in my state, people qualified for Medicaid at 150% of poverty level. With ACA, there is currently a move to decrease that to 133%.
ACA requires no decrease. It sets a floor.
Unable to respond elsewhere. ACA is a floor, but it is one that apparently was good enough for the Democratic Congress and Obama. If it is unjust, look to them as the source of the injustice.
Kurt,
You didn’t understand my point. I was lamenting the millions of low and moderate income people (and even high-income people) who will not receive completely free healthcare under the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act requires people to pay into a health insurance program – it doesn’t make it free for low and moderate income people. I’m wondering why you and M.Z. aren’t outraged that low and middle income people won’t be receiving free healthcare under the Act, but will be required to pay for health insurance.
I’m am in full support of the ACA giving lower and moderate income people the opportunity to buy health insurance at group rates with tax credits providing a sliding scale discount. Along with the increased number of people who will get employer provided coverage due to the mild penalties the Act applies to large employers who don’t offer coverage and the tax credits given to small businesses if they will, you there have the guts of the President’s plan.
At the very low end of the spectrum we have a modest expansion of Medicaid, particularly important until the other provisions are fully up and running.
If you support the President’s plan and think the tax credits and subsidies should be extended to lower wage workers than currently, I don’t have a strong objection there.
If you don’t otherwise support the President’s Plan, then please explain yourself.
Kurt,
Having a conversation about the option of giving lower and moderate income people an opportunity to buy health insurance at group rates, with tax credits, etc. is a very useful discussion. But remember, this whole discussion started when I pointed out that the ACA did NOT extend free health coverage to 133% to 200% earners — and that I wondered why M.Z. was outraged at Wisconsin for not extending free health coverage to a group that the ACA didn’t cover either. That last question is what I’m curious about.
MZ,
While I think you make a good point that the healthcare crisis is being ignored by much of the catholic media, I don’t believe it is the case that it is being ignored by the catholic bishops. If we take a look at where catholic dollars are spent, I think we will find that far far more money is spent on healthcare than politicing about marriage. If we take a look at public statements from bishops, I think we will find that there are far more statements about the importance of healthcare than about the marriage laws. However, if we look at the press coverage that the public statements of bishops recieve (in BOTH catholic and secular sources), then you will find that statements about marriage predominate.
I think your issue is with the media. The media don’t care about the poor. This has nearly always been the case. Nothing has changed here.
Taxation is theft. In order to fund any progrm, however laudable, the state must rely on coercive aggression to extract the needed resources from its subjects and must back this up with the threat of lethal violence. Taking someone else’s stuff and threatening to throw him in prison or shoot him if he resists is evil. It is a violation of the sixth commandment, even if perpetrated by men with badges and costumes emblazoned with “Police”. Some of us out there object to government funded health care (and government funded anything, the military, swat teams, unmanned drones, Head Start, etc.) for this reason.
As to the marriage licenses for homosexuals, I’m losing no sleep over that either. I don’t believe in state issued licenses of any kind, least of all those authorizing two reason endowed adults to form whatever sort of pertnership they choose. In a free society, two men or two women who want to call themselves married would be of no concern to me. Anarchy based on the non-aggression principle would put an end to both of these disagreements.
Make that the seventh commandment
The Catholic Church has never cottoned to the “taxation is theft” idea. It’s been in favor of taxation for centuries upon centuries.
And often it was the Church charging the taxes. Or do you really think those “tithes” were optional?
Now I can agree with taxes that are limited to 10%. An equal flat rate tax for all.
There are not enough Kurts in this world, so I say tax the hell out of the rest of us if that is what it takes to help the poor.
That is easily doable. If your income in in the lower 50 per centile, you pay no Federal Income Taxes. Let’s start taxing those who pay no Federal Income Taxes.
Another option is to take those public employees who are making above the 50% income, reduce their pay and benefits (particularly those whose benefits and pay approach 100k plus per year and who pay next to nothing towards their benefits) and reduce their ability to significantly increase their pay and benefits in the future. This so we can help the truly poor.
The federal poverty level is a strange thing. For a single person, 133% of the poverty level is $14,483.70, for my family it is $70,730.30.
I make something very near the poverty level for a family of our size, between 95-105% of the poverty level. But we certainly have the resources to live better than a single person making 14k per year.
The metric is seriously flawed.
That is kind of you Ron, but I would make another point. I had some issues myself with expanding Medicaid, fearing it results in a welfarization of health care. In principle, able bodied people working full time should not have to depend on private or public charity for their health care. They should not be slurred with being classified as charity cases. As far as I am concerned, they have earned health care, the question is how it is delivered.
The right wing closes the door on a social insurance system, a single payer system, an employer mandate, a soft employer mandate on large and medium sized firms, a family mandate coupled with local exchanges and every other proposal for universal coverage, including the ones they supported when they feared a more robust proposal was on the table. And certainly for all their anti-government rhetoric, what they really bring out the long knives over is the idea that workers through a union would negotiate with management over this.
Having demanded all of those doors be closed, they then object to a welfare program for those low wage, non-union workers who have no other means of health insurance coverage.
Conservative may have some faux sympathy for the poor. They have a disgusting hatred for the well-being of the lower middle class.
In principle, able bodied people working full time should not have to depend on private or public charity for their health care. They should not be slurred with being classified as charity cases.
So it’s a slur to say if an able-bodied person can’t pay for healthcare themselves, they may have to depend on the charity of private persons or public institutions? But it’s not a slur to say that if an able-bodied person can’t pay for healthcare, they may have to depend on the taxpayers of the state?
…like your insulting comment that my family has its hand out expecting “others” to pay for their health insurance.
So it’s an insult to say that if someone can’t pay for healthcare, he might have to look to someone “other” to pay for it? But it’s not an insult to say that if someone can’t pay for healthcare, he might have to look to the taxpayers to pay for it?
Kurt, I don’t understand your contempt for someone needing and using private and public charity, while having no contempt for someone needing and using the “charity” of the state.
Kurt, I don’t understand your contempt for someone needing and using private and public charity, while having no contempt for someone needing and using the “charity” of the state.
What I have contempt for is the system that puts working people in the position of having to resort to private or public charity. It is unjust. And to hurrah for a Governor taking health insurance away from workers making $16K/yr while offering no other path other than a false assertion that “there are [private] poorhouses for them” is offensive to me.
Kurt,
I still don’t understand. What I have contempt for is the system that puts working people in the position of having to resort to private or public charity. It is unjust. Regardless of the government program out there, your unfortunate relative is a working person who has to resort to charity, because she can’t afford healthcare. It’s sad and unfortunate, but she has no choice but to resort to accepting charity from someone in order to cover her healthcare costs, whether it be accepting charity from a charitable institution or accepting charity from the state. She can accept free money from charitable institutions, or she can accept free money from taxpayers. In both instances, she has to resort to charity because she doesn’t have any money herself. And I don’t understand why one is contemptible and the other isn’t.
And I don’t understand why one is contemptible and the other isn’t.
It is contemptible that in our society, able-bodied full time workers do not have health insurance. And it is contemptible that, given that reality, some raise hurrahs when modest, interim public programs are cut back, suggesting that people rely on non-existant “charity.” That they can be told to go with their hand out to the Church when the local diocese offers no such aid. And when nothing is said affirming the national program being implemented now to cover tens of millions of such Americans or, alternativly, the wisdom of an employer mandate.
Cheering the fact my niece may soon have her health care taken away from her with only a flippant suggestion she beg on the street corner us not something I take kindly.
Sigh. I see you’re not understanding my point. Since it doesn’t look like this discussion is going anywhere, I guess we’ll have to end it here.
Oh, and I wish your relative all the best in this difficult time for her.
Great. Well wishes and a referal to a church that offers no such aid. Thanks alot.
Kurt,
I’ve tried to be respectful of you and your niece, and I’ve tried to be calm and thoughtful in our discussion – so I don’t appreciate your condescending and dismissive attitude towards me, which I haven’t objected to until now.
Your niece is in a tough situation, and I truly wish her well. She can’t afford to pay for health insurance, and that’s terribly unfortunate. Now I think there are 2 ways for relief: (1) lowering the cost of health insurance (perhaps through low-cost programs, tax credits, or some other way) or (2) having her rely on charity (whether it be charity from the government or charity from some other institution). We haven’t talked much about (1), but maybe we should.
We have talked about (2), and this is the way I see it: apparently both Walker and Obama/Reid/Pelosi think that your niece makes sufficient money to pay for health insurance and that therefore she shouldn’t receive government charity. You think that Walker/Obama/etc. are wrong and that she should receive government charity. That’s fine. That’s an acceptable opinion, and I’ve invited you and M.Z. to explain that position in greater detail.
But as of now, it appears that Walker/Obama/etc. think that your niece shouldn’t receive government charity because she makes enough money. I’ve suggested that if your niece remains in a financial bind, she may have to look to charity from another source since charity from the government won’t be forthcoming. And I don’t think that charity from another source besides the government is dishonorable or contemptible.
Before making generalizations about “the bishops” and loss of health care vs. DOMA, keep in mind that most of the actions occurring now concerning health care and other social services are happening at the state level. The USCCB very rarely speaks on state issues. To find out how the bishops are actually responding visit the web sites of the state Catholic conferences. You will find a list of them here: http://www.nasccd.org.
I have been following the Wisconsin bishops individually and in conference closely. -mz