tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post3411820294492892973..comments2023-10-30T08:00:43.585-05:00Comments on Shameless Popery: Dorothy Day and ObamacareJoe Heschmeyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-41823157349302298742010-12-02T09:32:06.555-06:002010-12-02T09:32:06.555-06:00Michael,
Sorry for the delay in responding. Priv...Michael,<br /><br />Sorry for the delay in responding. Private action is possible with insurance, and the primary negotiators with insurance carriers are corporations providing employee healthcare. Dorothy Day would certainly demand, in keeping with her criticisms in the post above, that companies bargain on behalf of their employees. Unlike with a faceless State monolith, this is still an interpersonal relationship. Beyond that, my guess is that she'd encourage those involved in the medical profession - doctors, etc., - to simply act as healers rather than economic units. The whole argument about insurance and state involvement is rendered largely irrelevant if individuals would just step up with time, talent, and treasure to care the sick. <br /><br />But given that one of her major fears was that state involvement would lead to birth control and abortion, I'm quite sure she would have opposed Obamacare, since these risks are so very real in this context. Given the choice to do evil (provide b.c./abortions at taxpayer expense) so that good (insurance coverage, I guess?) could come about, is there any question that she'd reject that impulse?Joe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-81258969088814186452010-11-30T14:25:23.614-06:002010-11-30T14:25:23.614-06:00None of (a), (b) or (c) are individual actions and...None of (a), (b) or (c) are individual actions and the selection among them does not preclude the moral responsibility of individuals, despite the EU behavior you cite. (And I seem to recall Ireland bucked that trend, at least historically.)<br /><br />The question is what among the options available for COLLECTIVE action was the moral choice. Collective INaction, of course, is arguably the moral choice. And, of course you're arguing that point. <br /><br />However, direct aid (which is your analogy) is something that can efficiently be provided individually or collectively, while insurance is by its nature a collective activity only (as for that matter is regulation/deregulation. Doing nothing in this context really does mean doing nothing, not simply getting our of the way so that individuals of their own accord can do something.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07020715588545395128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-36436924317642939262010-11-30T13:29:45.332-06:002010-11-30T13:29:45.332-06:00Because (c) is only "nothing" if you sta...Because (c) is only "nothing" if you start with the assumption that salvation must come through the State, an assumption which, given the State's track record, is at least questionable.<br /><br />Dorothy Day's entire life is testament that when we stop putting our trust in princes (Psalm 146:3), and starting providing for the needs of others out of our abundance (2 Cor. 8:14) and even out of our poverty (Mark 12:44), amazing things can happen. <br /><br />Just compare the track records of the US and EU on foreign aid. The EU gives much more state aid than the US (we give next to nothing). But this comes at a sharp cost: individuals give next to nothing in foreign aid in the EU, and give immensely more in the US. So our total giving is much higher than theirs, even though (and really, because) our government gives very little. We have a political system in which one party says don't give, and the other says that the state should give with your money. Neither of those are Christian solutions.<br /><br />There are numerous ways for <b>individuals</b> to effect change without waiting for the State in the areas of caring for the sick, giving to the poor, etc. Like Dorothy Day suggested, there is a place for the state as a last resort. But when we cease to think of the State as the last resort, and start thinking of them as the only resort, and the appropriate actor, we've failed as Christians, and we've failed as a people who enjoy liberty and autonomy.Joe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-90342154477352579632010-11-30T11:51:20.187-06:002010-11-30T11:51:20.187-06:00Of course, if one "agree[s] with the Democrat...Of course, if one "agree[s] with the Democrats on the problem," but doesn't like the solution, it is not as if there were an unlimited range of choices offered. The American political process, for which we are collectively morally responsible and in which a disheartening number of our fellow citizens (and fellow Catholics) refuse to participate in, offered three choices: (a) The Democrats' legislation that ultimately passed, (b) the Republican proposal which basically further de-regulated the health insurance industry; or (c) nothing.<br /><br />If inaction produced (c), why was that moral result?Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07020715588545395128noreply@blogger.com