On The Main Blog

Creative Minority Reader

ObamaCare Conflicts With Catholicism?

Health care rationing forces the government to determine how much each life is worth. Princeton Professor Peter Singer is cool with that. We shouldn't be:

If you read the New York Times Magazine this weekend, you will see a lengthy article by Princeton professor Peter Singer. In this article he argues for health care rationing. Rationing implies that care is denied because the patient is deemed unworthy of such care. Read this article very carefully. This paragraph seems to capture the moral problem with his reasoning:
Continue reading>>>

Your Ad Here

4 comments:

Fr. Erik Richtsteig said...

Maybe folks will now get past the koolaid pedaled by Kmiec et al. and realize that Obama and his agenda are neither friendly to nor compatible with the Faith.

SherryTex said...

Remember how EVIL insurance companies were for denying coverage because they wanted to make a profit? And how wrong it was to deny coverage that would allow a person to thrive or survive, how cruel to place a dollar value on a human being if insurance was doing the value placement? But it's okay if the government does?

One other thing to those who love the idea of nationalized health care. If the insurance denies your claim and something happens, you can sue. You have the government to fight for you against the insurance policy and insurance companies. If the government is the insurance, to whom do you turn for redress if the government says "no."

William said...

Both good points. It always amazes me that people don't understand that the best reason to pass National Health Care is because it's a great way to quietly control your population, the obvious reason why all "Cool" nations have it.

Voice in the Crowd said...

"Now, back to my Catholic case against the President’s Health Care Plan. The danger, as mentioned, is setting up two classes of people. Some of the darkest chapters of world history began with this premise and resulted in genocide. This is not hyperbole.

If we, as a society, determine that someone who is possibly treatable does not warrant life-saving or life-extending care because of their demographics or situation- just pain medication - the next logical, expedient, cost-savings and obvious secular step is saying why should this person suffer with absolutely no hope. It’s pointless. We should put them out of their misery. Euthanasia is the demonic offspring to the rationed health care that Obama speaks of...
The immediate front lines of this second class of people, and starting point, will be the handicapped, the elderly, the terminally and chronically ill and less-than-perfect newborns."


Popular Posts