Pope Francis Takes On Capitalism And Inequality

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare. Has been declared Constitutional by the US Supreme Court. Its genesis is firmly established in early US history.

Just because they did that does not make it so. It just means that you can't use the courts to get rid of it. Anyway it is a disaster of a bill and he (Obama) lied. Your health care is going to suck, Saint, when are you going to wake up?

Edited December 18, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[The Nehor]

Just because they did that does not make it so. It just means that you can't use the courts to get rid of it. Anyway it is a disaster of a bill and he (Obama) lied. Your health care is going to suck, Saint, when are you going to wake up?

My health care already sucks. For most of America it is overpriced. The Affordable Care Act might make it worse but let's not pretend we are some kind of bastion of good health care the world envies and that we are going to ruin a good thing.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

My health care already sucks. For most of America it is overpriced. The Affordable Care Act might make it worse but let's not pretend we are some kind of bastion of good health care the world envies and that we are going to ruin a good thing.

Actually what you are talking about is another issue. The care you recieve is top notch, so is mine we don't wait for months on end on a waiting list while the government decides if we are worth it to get that hip replacenment. And there is not a shortage of PCP's. What sucks is the way it all works via a 3rd party payor system. I agree. But things are going to get worse to the point that your acutal care will be affected. So no, your health care doesn't suck. If I go buy the best care on the planet and over pay does that mean the car sucks now? That seems to be what you are saying. IOW cost does not mean quality or lack there of. And of course carry on.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Stone holm]

Actually what you are talking about is another issue. The care you recieve is top notch, so is mine we don't wait for months on end on a waiting list while the government decides if we are worth it to get that hip replacenment. And there is not a shortage of PCP's. What sucks is the way it all works via a 3rd party payor system. I agree. But things are going to get worse to the point that your acutal care will be affected. So no, your health care doesn't suck. If I go buy the best care on the planet and over pay does that mean the car sucks now? That seems to be what you are saying. IOW cost does not mean quality or lack there of. And of course carry on.

 

Actually, most rankings of national healthcare would disagree with you.  The healthcare provided in many European countries and other long developed countries is ranked higher.  But, we are ahead of the third-world, and we lead the world in the cost of providing the service.

 

I don't see the discussion of economics as being necessarily political, at least in the sense of partisan politics, given that both parties have been promoting the same system despite periodic hysterics by the extremes.  The question is also not really about the level of governmental intrusion, its more about where the government should intrude whether at the macro level or the micro level.  Do we want to intrude upon large corporations or as to saying who can marry who.  But economics is very much a religious question.  Christ during His earthly mission devoted the majority of his time to economic issues, and although He spent some time on sexual morality -- it was a rather limited amount of time.  When He used the word "adulterous" in the phrase "wicked and adulterous generation", he was talking about disloyalty to Heavenly Father's plan.  Much more of His time was spent on gratitude, caring for each others needs, and combating the hypocrisy of the establishment class.  These are all economic issues.  He was working within a quasi-theocracy since the Jewish religious leadership provided much of the local governance of the area under Roman occupation.  So His attacks were not just on the Pharisees and the Sadducees, but also on, in essence, the government's policies towards the poor, the ill, and the imprisoned.

[Vance]

The Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare. Has been declared Constitutional by the US Supreme Court. Its genesis is firmly established in early US history.

So, the Obamacare defense was that it was a penalty, (because Obama promised not to raise taxes), but Roberts saved them from themselves by ruling that it wasn't a penalty, but a Tax making it constitutional.

The Problem is that ALL tax bills MUST originate in the House, BUT Obamacare originated in the Senate, MAKING IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

[Vance]

Let us talk a little religion now. Or rather Obama worshipping.

Barbara Walters told Piers Morgan on his show Tuesday night. But despite her best judgment, she went on to say it – and it was quite a controversial statement.

“He made so many promises. We thought that he was going to be – I shouldn’t say this at Christmastime, but – the next messiah. And the whole Obamacare, or whatever you want to call it, that Affordable Health Act, it just hasn’t worked for him, and he’s stumbled around on it, and people feel very disappointed because they expected more.”

[Vance]

Actually, most rankings of national healthcare would disagree with you.  The healthcare provided in many European countries and other long developed countries is ranked higher.  But, we are ahead of the third-world, and we lead the world in the cost of providing the service.

 

I don't see the discussion of economics as being necessarily political, at least in the sense of partisan politics, given that both parties have been promoting the same system despite periodic hysterics by the extremes.  The question is also not really about the level of governmental intrusion, its more about where the government should intrude whether at the macro level or the micro level.  Do we want to intrude upon large corporations or as to saying who can marry who.  But economics is very much a religious question.  Christ during His earthly mission devoted the majority of his time to economic issues, and although He spent some time on sexual morality -- it was a rather limited amount of time.  When He used the word "adulterous" in the phrase "wicked and adulterous generation", he was talking about disloyalty to Heavenly Father's plan.  Much more of His time was spent on gratitude, caring for each others needs, and combating the hypocrisy of the establishment class.  These are all economic issues.  He was working within a quasi-theocracy since the Jewish religious leadership provided much of the local governance of the area under Roman occupation.  So His attacks were not just on the Pharisees and the Sadducees, but also on, in essence, the government's policies towards the poor, the ill, and the imprisoned.

Simply because those rankings are by socialists/progressives. The fact of the matter is that people who can afford it COME TO AMERICA for treatment BECAUSE IT IS THE BEST IN THE WORLD!

[why me]

Back to the pope. When the pope was a cardinal he was an outspoken critic of globalization, especially because it created poverty and inequality. Many liberation theologians saw a lot of promise in this cardinal. When he was a cardinal he rooted himself in a particular brand of latin american politics which was rather favorable to the socialist politics of certain countries. We need to remember that his homeland rejected the IMF and its severe penalties for not following its instructions.

 

Now that he is pope, he has a problem. Of course, he can speak out against capitalism but the catholic church has billions of dollars in investments and properties. It is one thing to be a critique of capital but quite another to disinvest in holdings and give the money to the poor.

Edited December 18, 2013 by why me

[Vance]

My health care already sucks. For most of America it is overpriced. The Affordable Care Act might make it worse but let's not pretend we are some kind of bastion of good health care the world envies and that we are going to ruin a good thing.

It would have gotten better and would be less expensive than it is now if they would have passed the Republican plan rather than Obamacare.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Actually, most rankings of national healthcare would disagree with you. 

I don't give a crap what they say. Most of them are clueless and have an agenda. If you think our health care sucks so bad go to Canada or GB or heck try Cuba or Venesuela. Truth is we have awesome quality here in the states. The main issue is that it is expensive and it need not be has high as it is. But once again your progressive friends keep messing it up with their big ideas and their useless government reforms that often times make it worse. Case in point is Obama Care.  It is not going to cut my premiums by 2500 dollars. It is going to increase them by a lot. You can't mandate that all of this new stuff becovered then expect costs to go down. Some one has to pay for it.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Let us talk a little religion now. Or rather Obama worshipping.

Barbara Walters told Piers Morgan on his show Tuesday night. But despite her best judgment, she went on to say it – and it was quite a controversial statement.

 

What Wawa can't seem to grasp is that Obama lied to us all. And no he is not the messiah in anyway shape or form. Stupid media. Do you damn jobs and we would be in the situation we are in now.

[pmccombs1]

Back to the pope. When the pope was a cardinal he was an outspoken critic of globalization, especially because it created poverty and inequality. Many liberation theologians saw a lot of promise in this cardinal. When he was a cardinal he rooted himself in a particular brand of latin american politics which was rather favorable to the socialist politics of certain countries. We need to remember that his homeland rejected the IMF and its severe penalties for not following its instructions.

 

Now that he is pope, he has a problem. Of course, he can speak out against capitalism but the catholic church has billions of dollars in investments and properties. It is one thing to be a critique of capital but quite another to disinvest in holdings and give the money to the poor.

 

Yes, let's get back to the pope. This thread has gone in the wrong direction.

 

The efficiency with which wealth is distributed and secured has nothing at all to do with the sort of economic participation that the Catholic church values. It isn't about securing the most goods for the greatest number of people. It isn't about jobs, healthcare, or any of the utter nonsense this upside-down world has given us.

 

Do you know what would utterly destroy our healthcare system? If people were healthy. If they actually practiced health care, they wouldn't need disease care. Billions would be lost; money would cease to change hands at the volume it does now. Disaster! 

 

Do you know what would utterly destroy our economy? If people were economical. If they actual practiced economy, they wouldn't need what we think economy is supposed to be. 

 

But then how in the world can you concentrate power, authority, money, and all of the other goods of Babylon? How can you make a superpower? 

 

When people are left out, it isn't because our capitalism or our socialism just aren't perfect yet.  It's because we put an ism where there shouldn't be one at all. 

 

So I don't know why we are arguing about whose irrelevant market economy is the best, or how badly our president lies to us. If the pope makes the radical claim that we shouldn't shoot up with heroin, the argument is going to turn to the best system of needle hygiene.  What a waste.

[3DOP]

Yes, let's get back to the pope. This thread has gone in the wrong direction.

 

The efficiency with which wealth is distributed and secured has nothing at all to do with the sort of economic participation that the Catholic church values. It isn't about securing the most goods for the greatest number of people. It isn't about jobs, healthcare, or any of the utter nonsense this upside-down world has given us.

 

Do you know what would utterly destroy our healthcare system? If people were healthy. If they actually practiced health care, they wouldn't need disease care. Billions would be lost; money would cease to change hands at the volume it does now. Disaster! 

 

Do you know what would utterly destroy our economy? If people were economical. If they actual practiced economy, they wouldn't need what we think economy is supposed to be. 

 

But then how in the world can you concentrate power, authority, money, and all of the other goods of Babylon? How can you make a superpower? 

 

When people are left out, it isn't because our capitalism or our socialism just aren't perfect yet.  It's because we put an ism where there shouldn't be one at all. 

 

So I don't know why we are arguing about whose irrelevant market economy is the best, or how badly our president lies to us. If the pope makes the radical claim that we shouldn't shoot up with heroin, the argument is going to turn to the best system of needle hygiene.  What a waste.

 

Thanks for something to think about besides socialism and socialism and socialism and socialism. Yesterday I started a biography of Hilaire Belloc who is known for many of his literary offerings, but also for developing a theory of economy based on late 19th Century Catholic thought. If I can slam it out before the thread goes back to socialism and socialism and etc., maybe I can share some thoughts.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes, let's get back to the pope. This thread has gone in the wrong direction.

 

I agree I wont be commenting any further on the "wrong direction".

[Stone holm]

Yes, let's get back to the pope. This thread has gone in the wrong direction.

 

The efficiency with which wealth is distributed and secured has nothing at all to do with the sort of economic participation that the Catholic church values. It isn't about securing the most goods for the greatest number of people. It isn't about jobs, healthcare, or any of the utter nonsense this upside-down world has given us.

 

Do you know what would utterly destroy our healthcare system? If people were healthy. If they actually practiced health care, they wouldn't need disease care. Billions would be lost; money would cease to change hands at the volume it does now. Disaster! 

 

Do you know what would utterly destroy our economy? If people were economical. If they actual practiced economy, they wouldn't need what we think economy is supposed to be. 

 

But then how in the world can you concentrate power, authority, money, and all of the other goods of Babylon? How can you make a superpower? 

 

When people are left out, it isn't because our capitalism or our socialism just aren't perfect yet.  It's because we put an ism where there shouldn't be one at all. 

 

So I don't know why we are arguing about whose irrelevant market economy is the best, or how badly our president lies to us. If the pope makes the radical claim that we shouldn't shoot up with heroin, the argument is going to turn to the best system of needle hygiene.  What a waste.

 

There is the thrift paradox.  Which is if everyone was thrifty, frugal and saved their surplus the economy would collapse.  If you read Brigham Young on economics, I think you see a lot of parallels to that which the Pope is now preaching.  Brigham Young did not preach save your surplus, what Brigham Young said was use your surplus to improve your farm and your business.   Some of the sermons are quite interesting.  It is fairly clear that BY would have been appalled by some of the things going on today.  Instead of increasing the size of your farm, he encouraged farmers to decrease the size of their farms and farm the downsized farm with greater intensity and care.  The problem we have now is that business has become so abstract, control is through balance sheets and budgets -- with relatively little value placed on the human factor.  That almost inevitably happens when something becomes too big.  For years people have been popping up and saying we need to get back to humanscale.

[pmccombs1]

Thanks for something to think about besides socialism and socialism and socialism and socialism. Yesterday I started a biography of Hilaire Belloc who is known for many of his literary offerings, but also for developing a theory of economy based on late 19th Century Catholic thought. If I can slam it out before the thread goes back to socialism and socialism and etc., maybe I can share some thoughts.

 

I look forward to it. Stone holm brought up "humanscale," so I want to review E.F. Schumacher again. I believe his economic ideas began with Buddhism, and then he found the Catholic economists. I think he was baptized into the Catholic church late in life. If we want to understand pope Francis, I think Belloc, Chesterton, and Shumacher would help give a good frame of reference--rather than trying to fit him into a socialism mold, because he said something that makes him look not-capitalist. I'd nominate the New Testament too, but there are too many arguments about whether Jesus was a Capitalist or a Socialist.

[Stone holm]

I look forward to it. Stone holm brought up "humanscale," so I want to review E.F. Schumacher again. I believe his economic ideas began with Buddhism, and then he found the Catholic economists. I think he was baptized into the Catholic church late in life. If we want to understand pope Francis, I think Belloc, Chesterton, and Shumacher would help give a good frame of reference--rather than trying to fit him into a socialism mold, because he said something that makes him look not-capitalist. I'd nominate the New Testament too, but there are too many arguments about whether Jesus was a Capitalist or a Socialist.

Good luck, these days if you voice any concerns about capitalism you immediately get branded socialist.

[Vance]

Do you know what would utterly destroy our healthcare system? If people were healthy. If they actually practiced health care, they wouldn't need disease care. Billions would be lost; money would cease to change hands at the volume it does now. Disaster!

Nah, sometimes people who DO take care of themselves, healthwise, STILL get sick.

 

Do you know what would utterly destroy our economy? If people were economical. If they actual practiced economy, they wouldn't need what we think economy is supposed to be.

Nah. You still consume food, clothing, and fuel. Unless you can make ALL of those things for yourself, you have to trade for them. And even then, the tax man cometh. Edited December 18, 2013 by Vance

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Good luck, these days if you voice any concerns about capitalism you immediately get branded socialist.

I know better in fact most of us do. Anyway.......

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Nah, sometimes people who DO take care of themselves, healthwise, STILL get sick.

 

Not to mention that there is more to getting sick or being healthy than just eating right and exercising. And there is more to health care than just going to the doctor because you caught the flu. I digress.....

[The Nehor]

 

Actually what you are talking about is another issue. The care you recieve is top notch, so is mine we don't wait for months on end on a waiting list while the government decides if we are worth it to get that hip replacenment. And there is not a shortage of PCP's. What sucks is the way it all works via a 3rd party payor system. I agree. But things are going to get worse to the point that your acutal care will be affected. So no, your health care doesn't suck. If I go buy the best care on the planet and over pay does that mean the car sucks now? That seems to be what you are saying. IOW cost does not mean quality or lack there of. And of course carry on.

 

No, instead of the government deciding if I am worth it the insurance company makes the decision. Now I am in pretty good shape there. I have quality insurance and if the insurance company were to try and rip me off I know who to talk to and how to use the courts to punish them for it. The 40 year old guy with a high school diploma working one and a half barely above minimum wage to keep his family fed, clothed, and housed is less likely to have been blessed with the education and know-how to fight that battle and he would have a much harder time acquiring legal representation and risks losing his job if he takes time off to go to court.

 

Health care is fantastic for the upper-middle class and above in America as long as they are working. Healthcare for the impoverished is an endless battle surrounded by arcane rules you may not understand for a doctor's visit you cannot afford and is probably substandard because your insurance doesn't cover the most skilled medical care in the nation.

 

 

I don't give a crap what they say. Most of them are clueless and have an agenda. If you think our health care sucks so bad go to Canada or GB or heck try Cuba or Venesuela. Truth is we have awesome quality here in the states. The main issue is that it is expensive and it need not be has high as it is. But once again your progressive friends keep messing it up with their big ideas and their useless government reforms that often times make it worse. Case in point is Obama Care.  It is not going to cut my premiums by 2500 dollars. It is going to increase them by a lot. You can't mandate that all of this new stuff becovered then expect costs to go down. Some one has to pay for it.

 

I lived in Britain for several years. It is true that if you use the government system (you do not have to) you tend to get shorter doctor's visits but you DO almost always get the care you need. A few horror stories of people caught on waiting lists have people terrified of government systems but those are not the norm.

 

The argument against Obamacare is often that we cannot lower costs. A quick glance at what the rest of the world is paying for healthcare suggests that we could do a lot to trim the fat. Not government fat either. The government is actually one of the most efficient providers and that kind of scares me. Medical insurance eats up a TON of our healthcare dollars and yet in true provides no concrete medical benefits for those dollars. I am in favor of eliminating insurance entirely. What they do now essentially devolves down to price fixing protection rackets. The insurance companies are ruining the free market by negotiating discounts individuals cannot.

 

I say abolish the insurance companies entirely and have medical facilities post price lists and let the market step in and get prices under control or socialize medicine entirely (while leaving private options open). We keep trying to live in the middle because lobbyists want us there. The Affordable Care Act is a small step to nowhere. I don't think it will make things much worse but I also don't think it will make anything better.

 

I don't think Obama is evil for proposing it or bent on socializing America. I think it was a timid step. We should have gone much further one way or the other.

 

 

It would have gotten better and would be less expensive than it is now if they would have passed the Republican plan rather than Obamacare.

 

What Republican healthcare plan? I have heard a lot of noise about a good alternative but the party can't agree on one. I think Republicans could come up with a better plan. If they would quit trying to outconservative each other by posting pictures of themselves shooting guns to show how much they dislike Obama taking people's guns (a silly red herring) maybe they could focus on real issues.

 

 

Good luck, these days if you voice any concerns about capitalism you immediately get branded socialist.

 

Yep, I am constantly told I am a socialist since I don't consider Obama an evil man bent on the destruction of the constitution and all liberty and I do not consider all liberals to be moral degenerates and I do not consider Conservatives to be staunch oppressed defenders of the Constitution righteously and selflessly defending America from the tyranny of Stalinist Communists lurking throughout America desperate to usher in a new age of liberal darkness. I am scared by how many Americans believe this without the parody element:

 

http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-help-us-destroy-jesus-and-start-a-new-age-of,29478/

 

I keep getting tempted to stop voting Republican and go Southern Democrat or something. Hasn't happened yet though. Not much place left in America for more moderate views. Pick Shiz or Coriantumr and fight to the bitter end I guess. At least it shows how relevant the Book of Mormon is.

[The Nehor]

So, the Obamacare defense was that it was a penalty, (because Obama promised not to raise taxes), but Roberts saved them from themselves by ruling that it wasn't a penalty, but a Tax making it constitutional.

The Problem is that ALL tax bills MUST originate in the House, BUT Obamacare originated in the Senate, MAKING IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

 

To be fair the legislature did not take it as a tax when passing it. Instead an activist conservative judge rewrote it into a tax with his ruling and as most conservatives have vehemently argued that activist judges ARE NOT ALLOWED to rewrite legislation to suit them one would hope they would place the blame on Judge Roberts for rewriting the law and creating the conundrum.

 

I won't hold my breath for consistency on that front.........

 

Of course the whole argument is hogwash. The Senate explicitly does have the power to amend House bills which is what happened. A bill passed the House and then the Senate cored it out and inserted the Affordable Care Act as part of an amended bill. It then passed in both the Senate and the House. The original intent behind the Constitutional clause was that the Senate was to represent the aristocracy (equivalent to the British House of Lords) and the "power of the purse" was to reside with the people. The 17th amendment ripped apart that justification by mandating senators be selected by direct election. The wording is of course still there but the Senate does have the power to amend with no limits on how much amendation can occur to the bill. You can argue this is stupid. I agree but it is constitutional. The Senate has done this exact same thing since the earliest days of the United States and no court challenge has worked against it. Conservatives are grasping at straws.

 

Do they really imagine Judge Roberts is going to say, "Whoops, screwed that up. Forgot the origination clause means something it has not meant before. Decision overturned."

Edited December 19, 2013 by The Nehor

[pmccombs1]

Nah, sometimes people who DO take care of themselves, healthwise, STILL get sick.

 

Nah. You still consume food, clothing, and fuel. Unless you can make ALL of those things for yourself, you have to trade for them. And even then, the tax man cometh.

 

 

Now you're being petulant and absurd. Yes, of course people still get sick even when they take care of themselves, and they still need things they can't make on their own, even when they practice economy as it once was. But you can't build a multi-billion dollar healthcare industry on top of good habits any more than you can build a global economy with people who practice subsidiarity. As you recall, my original claim was that money won't change hands at the volume it does now. Details.

[The Nehor]

Now you're being petulant and absurd. Yes, of course people still get sick even when they take care of themselves, and they still need things they can't make on their own, even when they practice economy as it once was. But you can't build a multi-billion dollar healthcare industry on top of good habits any more than you can build a global economy with people who practice subsidiarity. As you recall, my original claim was that money won't change hands at the volume it does now. Details.

 

So what you are saying is we should blame the health care crisis on those actually responsible for it: THE SICK!!!!

 

I like it.

[3DOP]

I look forward to it. Stone holm brought up "humanscale," so I want to review E.F. Schumacher again. I believe his economic ideas began with Buddhism, and then he found the Catholic economists. I think he was baptized into the Catholic church late in life. If we want to understand pope Francis, I think Belloc, Chesterton, and Shumacher would help give a good frame of reference--rather than trying to fit him into a socialism mold, because he said something that makes him look not-capitalist. I'd nominate the New Testament too, but there are too many arguments about whether Jesus was a Capitalist or a Socialist.

 

Are you ready to condemn usury? That's where Belloc goes. I just don't see what is wrong with charging an increase for loaning money today that you might get tomorrow according to the reliability of the creditor. Any way, I am going to try to keep an open mind. I had been a laissez faire guy before becoming Catholic and have just never seen anything they (the Distributists) have produced that makes me think it is wrong to allow people to buy and trade any commodity including land and labor at a freely negotiated price. But I really don't mind being wrong about this. My wife doesn't like my pre-Catholic economics and I usually end up believing what she does anyway. Heh.

 

I truly hope that Pope Francis is following popes like Leo XIII instead of his 1960's South American priestly formation. As you might see from the other thread, I have a few misgivings about him for other reasons. But I would be delighted and it would be very consoling to see that his economic initiatives are at least connected to a school of thought with such bright lights as the "Chesterbelloc" and Leo XIII.

 

Rory

Edited December 19, 2013 by 3DOP