Did You Know? U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Social Security Act of 1965 into law, establishing Medicare and Medicaid, on July 30 1965, as part of his “Great Society” push toward unsustainable entitlements. LEARN MORE.
6 thoughts on “And So, It Begins . . .”
Comments are closed.
Catholic Social Teaching would say that was a good day.
Maybe if this couple in India had something like Medicare or Medicaid their premature baby would not have been removed from an incubator and died because they were too poor to afford 200 rupees (3.60 US Dollars). <a href=”http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/9432219/Baby-dies-after-Indian-hospital-removes-her-from-incubator-over-2.30-cost.html”>story</a>
The alternative to social security is death, beggary and even justified theft (eg could this father have been justified in stealing 200 rupees to save his child’s life? – what would you have done?).
“unsustainable entitlements” is a loaded phrase which displays ones values and priorities. For <a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget”>some pie charts of income and expenditure</a>
The US budget is currently unsustainable because income does not match expenditure and has not done so for some time. Cutting taxes while increasing expenditure as Reagan (and others did) is not sustainable. The population is ageing – which increases pension, welfare and healthcare costs – euthanasia or more immigration by younger people can change the ratio of tax-paying workers to retired. The richest Americans pay less tax as a proportion of their income than those in the middle or bottom. Military expenditure is essentially bad but sometimes necessary, helping those in need is essentially good.
There are probably no easy answers to economic questions but our values, attitudes and priorities should be shaped by Christian Values. Catholic Social Teaching is in favour of social security spending.
“Every person has the right to life, to bodily integrity, and to the means which are suitable for the proper development of life. … Therefore, a human being has the right to security in case of sickness, inability to work, widowhood, old age, unemployment. …” <a href=”http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/social-security/”>Pope John XXIII</a> Pacem in Terris.
The rights of workers, like all other rights, are based on the nature of the human person and on his transcendent dignity. The Church’s social Magisterium has seen fit to list some of these rights, in the hope that they will be recognized in juridical systems:
the right to a just wage; the right to rest;
the right “to a working environment and to manufacturing processes which are not harmful to the workers’ physical health or to their moral integrity”;
the right that one’s personality in the workplace should be safeguarded “without suffering any affront to one’s conscience or personal dignity”;
<b>the right to appropriate subsidies that are necessary for the subsistence of unemployed workers and their families;
the right to a pension and to insurance for old age, sickness, and in case of work-related accidents;</b>
the right to social security connected with maternity;
the right to assemble and form associations.
These rights are often infringed, as is confirmed by the sad fact of workers who are underpaid and without protection or adequate representation. It often happens that work conditions for men, women and children, especially in developing countries, are so inhumane that they are an offence to their dignity and compromise their health. <a href=”http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#The%20dignity%20of%20workers%20and%20the%20respect%20for%20their%20rights”>Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church 301</a> <a href=”http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/03/23/catholic-social-teaching-and-the-welfare-state/”>
An interesting article on the Catholic origins of welfare spending from a Distributist standpoint</a>
<a href=”http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/”>US Bishops on life and dignity</a>
@Leo Leo Leo, Leo, please we cannot sustain this debt spending. How are we going to care for the poor of India with health care also.
On another point, you ask what alternatives exist. Well here is one. How about a competitive health care economy where a doctor visit costs $25 instead of $250. How do we get there you ask? The answer is, try a different approach from the current system. The “great society” program simply opened a large pipe of flowing money into health care. As a result, the prices went way up. This was great for those pushing lawsuits. Their damages claims went up too. Yes, the legal industry and the politicians were pleased with this outcome and they did it while making you believe it was the “caring” thing to do. Leo please, put your thinking cap on.
@rskempf you put so many words into my mouth I wondered if you were trolling. gewsin has actually read what I wrote.
You propose “a different approach from the current system” without specifying any details.
Anyway, you attribute the high and rising costs of US healtcare to government funding and legal costs. Legal costs are dwarfed by private admnistrative costs and government spending can reduce overall costs.
Take a look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States
The US spends almost twice as much on healthcare than the OECD average (see healthcare spending as a % of GDP), but gets a very poor ‘bang-for-buck’ eg infant mortality (assuming you are pro-life like me).
Why? About 31% of US costs are non-government administrative (twice that of Canada) and far more than socialized government systems (pause for a moment to let that sink in). Not surprising with so many funders and providers with different admin systems, each asprin having to be documented and checked. US insurance companies have funded the opposition to universal care – go figure.
Reduce this administrative overhead and you reduce costs.
I don’t think doctors and hospitals pay anything near 31% towards legal costs. Talking about legal costs are a pointless diversion. Do you think the US Constitution would allow less litigation regarding health? You also seem to be suggesting that the part of US healthcare which is government funded attracts more lawsuits than the privately funded part! If government funding attracts more lawsuits then almost all other developed countries (which have more government funding) would have higher healthcare costs – they don’t.
Lawyer costs might be reduced by the state or national health provider taking on the legal liability from individual doctors and hospitals and centralizing legal defence (with other disciplinary measures for doctors).
A single payer system (as favoured by the US Catholic bishops) has many advantages – mainly reduced cost and increased coverage – plus it avoids the problem of forcing employers from providing items they have a conscientious objection to. Bulk buying allows the UK NHS to squeeze the drug companies so much they complain they can’t fund research.
Notice how countries with more socialized government-funded systems have much lower costs.
Your hypothesis that a “large pipe” of government money causes healthcost inflation is falsified by the graph of health care cost rises – the US costs rises have outstripped more socialised systems.
A dogmatic worship of the free market is neither practical nor Christian with regard to healthcare.
@Leo Leo @rskempf Hello Leo, the greatest value is transferred to the consumer when a free market is in place with lots of service providers competing for customers and when customers have good data to make a choice by. This is high school economics. Also, a christian is not one that delegates authority to the government to provide direct care. It is in fact abdicating your duty to provide charity to your neighbor directly. What you are advocating is another rather large step toward a socialized economy which is by evidence of europe, rather weak. I do not expect to convince you to change your opinion on any issue but want to make it clear, your arguments do not hold water. You are defending an irrational position.
This was the beginning of the USA’s move to socialism. Those in favor of what LBJ passed are naive at best. This allows the current generation to spend beyond their means and simply pass the debt on to the next generation. I call this spineless and pathetic that this generation is not willing to work and pay for their own care.
rskempf,
Leo Leo tried to point out that spending is only half the equation, the other is revenue. But you don’t choose to see that. You seem much more interested in some antiquated idea of running a country like a checkbook than in the principle of helping your fellow man. But I hate to complain without offering a solution. Let’s start by having everyone pay 50% in taxes and set the country right financially without kicking human beings to the curb (in a very unChristianlike manner) and without firing teacher/police/firefighters, and then we can all decide what a reasonable tax structure should be. If the people vote to return to the present regressive (rich pay less) system, then I’ll be happy to play along.
Oh, and by the way, it was removing the Glass-Steagall act (enacted by a democrat who co-opted the republican idea) that largely led to this current financial collapse. Having Nothing to do with LBJ’s great society. That was simply the idea that a “great” country should not let its unlucky, sick, or elderly have to live off cat food without heat until they die. (Was there someone else in history who preached that?) But maybe you’d like to return to those “good old days.” Sure hope you don’t get a serious chronic illness that causes you to lose your job (and therefore your insurance), and your house. That would SUCK without food stamps or SSDI payments or Medicare/Medicaid health insurance, or funding even for homeless shelters. But you have a strong character, so I’m sure you’d do just fine. Got kids?