UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

back when he was Speaker. Bullet points noting - the Republicans alternative would offer “better care”, “lower premiums”, that was it, nothing else.

Vis a vis

On the flip side, the democrats had proposed through extensive review and study thousands of pages issues and there corrections to create the ACA to actually bring down costs and create easy access to affordable HC and the ability to work with hospitals, established corporate insurance co.s

That was 17 years ago - DJT in his first campaign and as POTUS promised a better HC plan but has never offered one. - nada, nothing.

it regarding Obamacare?

passed, since the public's response has been overwhelmingly positive. It also provides a stepping stone to the goal of more efficient and less costly HC for all,

(no message)

desire to deny coverage for those with Pre-Existing conditions...good luck Sr. Quixote...
-------------------
Others, however...like Steven Brill (Author of "America's Bitter Pill") suggests the following elements of new federal legislation...i.e. he favors integrated Hospital/Insurance entities...like those I've mentioned earlier (Kaiser/Permanente, Cleveland Clinic, UPMC, etc.)...in essence cutting out the "Middlemen. Here are the key elements...from his book...(Note:...he's looking at HC providers as "Utilities")

>"The first regulation would require that any market have at least two of these big, fully integrated provider-insurance company players. There could be no monopolies, only oligopolies, as anti-trust lawyers would call them."

>"The second regulation would cap the operating profits of what would be these now-allowed dominant market players, or oligopolies, at, say, 8 percent per year, compared to the current average of about 12 percent."

>"A third regulation---which, again, the hospital systems would have to agree to in return for them being allowed to achieve oligopoly or even monopoly status---would prevent hospital finance people from playing games with that profit limit by raising salaries and bonuses for themselves and their colleagues (thereby raising costs and lowering profits). There would be a cap on the total salary and bonus paid to any hospital employee who does not practice medicine full-time (or) sixty times the amount paid to the lowest salaried full-time doctor, typically a first-year resident."

>"A fourth regulation would require a streamlined appeals process, staffed by advocates and ombudsmen, for patients who believe adequate care has been denied them, or for doctors who claim they are being unduly pressured to skimp on care."

>"A fifth regulation would require that any government sanctioned oligopoly-designated integrated system had to have as its actual chief executive (not just title) a licensed physician who has practiced medicine for a minimum number of years."

>"Sixth, any sanctioned integrated oligopoly provider would be required to insure a certain percentage of Medicaid patients at a stipulated discount."

>"Which brings me to my final regulation: These regulated oligopolies would be required to charge any uninsured patients no more than they charge any competing insurance companies whose insurance they accept."

Once again, I encourage you and any other viewer who cares about Affordable Health Care, to read Steven Brill's book...and others...to get details and a fuller understanding of previous, current, and future HC systems, so as to make informed voting decisions on this very important issue.

It's where we are headed.

Everyone kicks in for national health care -- like the military.

Wealthier folks can still have private supplemental plans -- which will be relatively cheaper than now -- as the privately insured pool will be a healthier one.


Link: https://www.sanders.senate.gov/press-releases/news-sanders-jayapal-dingell-hundreds-of-health-care-workers-introduce-medicare-for-all/

(no message)

And yes, we celebrate Veterans Day for those who served the greatest nation ever -- a nation that used to protect human rights, human dignity .... until Trump.

Yes. I believe that one living in America ought not be denied clean air, food and shelter, and health care -- rights, not privileges.

(no message)

I agree that, in a rich society, no one should die because of lack of basic health care.

So yeah, it is a right in my mind. How we assure that right is a matter of policy.

(no message)

Do children have a right to be educated?

Do people have a right to fair trial?

Free education isn't a "right." It's a service paid for by taxes.

You have the right to Due Process because the government can't take away your freedom without it.

Health care isn't a right. You can argue as you have that it should be a basic service provided to all in Western Civilization. But it isn't and cannot be a right.

(no message)

Do you have the right to life without fear of being murdered or tortured? Those are basic human rights that depend on the actions of other people.

Surely there are communal rights, or those provided by a just community.

We are not as independent as we think.

Your right to not be assaulted or murdered can be infringed upon. Ditto your right to Free Speech. And we have remediations for those who have their rights infringed upon.

But no one has to give me anything when it comes to rights. I enjoy them by existing as a citizen in this country and living in accordance with the laws. No one has to provide me a service to enjoy those rights.

(no message)

Don't see the economics of that being sustainable...but doesn't seem to be a consideration for most of those driving it.

(no message)

Can the government compel you to teach the class?

(no message)

(no message)

Can’t have it both ways, Prof.

"Right to Choose" takes precedent...you keep missing that fact.

Yet Hensou just posted that the Catholic Church indeed teaches a human being is a person from the moment of conception. Therefore, you are deliberately not telling the truth.

Personhood is Debated, but also a summary article from "Where Peter Is" citing multiple sources (including Popes) who all say that the RCC has never 'Definitively' taught that Personhood begins at conception.

Don't make accusations you can't support, Mark. Now, while I've got your attention, please answer the question..."While a woman CAN reproduce, MUST she under Any and All circumstances?"...even if the pregnancy is Forced or Coerced against her will? Yes, or No...if Yes, then explain why, given that the woman is an undeniable Person with rights to live her own life.

You are a disgusting piece of garbage.

that I provided regarding the debate...and meaning...over Personhood and Abortion?

btw, this is an Open Forum, so anyone else is welcome to join in on the path to establishing common ground on this very serious issue.

“The Catholic Church views personhood as a divinely bestowed status rooted in being created in the image of God, with every person possessing inherent dignity and rights from the moment of conception. This perspective is founded on the belief that humans are a unity of body and soul, and this integral identity, including its transcendent nature, is not based on physical or cognitive abilities but on a being's status as a child of God. Therefore, the Church teaches that a human being is a person from conception onwards and deserves full respect and protection throughout their life”

Now, as to the RCC's Teaching on the issue of Fetal Personhood...here is a copy of an article in "Where Peter Is" that emphasizes the Church's teachings on respect for life...but ultimately acknowledges that it hasn't actually taught Personhood definitively begins at conception. I'm not editing anything out of it, so do us all a favor and read all the way through the last paragraph, which I will highlight...followed by the question no one on this forum has yet answered. I expect with your zeal, you will have no problem responding to with a Yes/No reply....

---------------------
Written by Mike Lewis

Once again, the words of Pope Francis have been taken out of context to paint him as some kind of heretic. Once again, Where Peter Is shows up to clear the air.

On November 28, 2022, America Magazine published the text of an exclusive interview with Pope Francis. The interview was conducted by a team of five representatives from America Media and touched on a wide range of issues from the Russian war on Ukraine to the role of women in the Church. Among the representatives from America was Gloria Purvis, a speaker and podcaster who is a well-known advocate for the right to life and for racial justice.

Purvis’s first question was about abortion and how it is heavily politicized in the Church and is a source of division among Catholics in the United States. Before addressing this specific issue, however, Pope Francis began his response by speaking about the morality of the act of abortion itself, saying:

On abortion, I can tell you these things, which I’ve said before. In any book of embryology it is said that shortly before one month after conception the organs and the DNA are already delineated in the tiny fetus, before the mother even becomes aware. Therefore, there is a living human being. I do not say a person, because this is debated, but a living human being. And I raise two questions: Is it right to get rid of a human being to resolve a problem? Second question: Is it right to hire a “hit man” to resolve a problem? The problem arises when this reality of killing a human being is transformed into a political question, or when a pastor of the church uses political categories.

This first part of the response closely resembles the way he’s discussed abortion before. He regularly tries to frame the issue in terms of its scientific reality – that the act of abortion is taking a living human life – and not a matter of theology or philosophy or religious principles. He has done this throughout his papacy, and he’s been consistent about this.

Unfortunately, many of the usual critics have jumped on the words, “I do not say a person, because this is debated, but a living human being.” They argue that in saying “this is debated” that he is denying the personhood of a human life from the moment of conception.

The easy response is to point out that he is simply acknowledging that there is a debate on whether the unborn child is a “person.” Because there is. Google “personhood debate” and you will get plenty of results.

The basic idea behind the argument that a human embryo or fetus is not a “person” is that although it is alive, possesses the genetic markers of a unique human life, and has begun to develop into a fully-formed human being, it will not achieve “personhood” until a certain stage of development. In the realm of the abortion debate, many abortion-rights advocates only recognize personhood status at birth or – chillingly – shortly thereafter. Age, health, quality of life, intellectual and physical ability, and other factors are used to deem whether a human being is a “person” or not.

Because this line is unavoidably relative or arbitrary, the personhood debate is used to justify other acts of killing, such as euthanasia or the death penalty. At its most extreme, the denial of personhood can be applied to the disabled and racial or ethnic groups. Some, such as Princeton’s Peter Singer, recognize the “personhood” of some animals while denying it in some human beings. Singer has said that “a chimpanzee, dog, or pig, for instance, will have a higher degree of self-awareness and a greater capacity for meaningful relations with others than a severely retarded infant or someone in a state of advanced senility … we must grant these animals a right to life as good as, or better than, such retarded or senile humans.”

Francis’s point is that rather than getting caught up in sifting through all the mental gymnastics involved in that debate, we should start with the fundamental reality: abortion is evil because it is killing a human life.

This is not new. For example, in 2014, he said in a meeting with the Italian Catholic Physicians’ Association:

Many times in my life as a priest, I have heard objections. “Tell me, why, for example, does the Church oppose abortion? Is it a religious problem?” — “No, no. It’s not a religious problem” — “Is it a philosophical problem?” — “No, it’s not a philosophical problem”. It is a scientific problem, because there is a human life there and it is not licit to eliminate a human life to resolve a problem. “But no, the modern school of thought…”. — “Listen, in the old and the modern schools of thought, the word kill means the same thing!”. The same is true for euthanasia. We all know that with so many elderly people in this throw-away culture, euthanasia is being performed in secret. There is also another. And this is saying to God: “No, I will end life, as I see fit”. A sin against God the Creator: think hard about this.

On the return flight from Mexico in 2016, he was asked if abortion could be considered a “lesser evil” than birth defects that could potentially be caused by the Zika virus. The pope responded, “Abortion is not a ‘lesser evil’. It is a crime. It is wiping out one to save another. That is what the mafia does. It is a crime, it is absolutely evil.” He went on to assert once again that opposition to abortion is not just grounded in religious conviction:

Abortion is not a theological issue: it is a human issue, it is a medical issue. One person is killed in order to save another — in the best case scenario — or in order to live comfortably. It is against the Hippocratic Oath that physicians take. It is an evil in and of itself. It is not a “religious” evil, to start with, no, it is a human evil. Evidently, as it is a human evil — like all killing — it is condemned.

On the return flight from the 2018 World Meeting of Families in Ireland, Pope Francis responded to another reporter’s question on abortion, saying:

On abortion, you know what the Church thinks. The issue of abortion is not a religious issue: we are not opposed to abortion for religious reasons. No. It is a human issue and has to be addressed as such. To consider abortion starting from religion is to step over [that realm of] thought. The abortion question has to be studied from an anthropological standpoint. There is always the anthropological question of how ethical it is to eliminate a living being in order to resolve a problem. This is the real issue. I would only emphasize this: I never allow the issue of abortion to be discussed starting with religion. No. It is an anthropological problem, a human problem. This is my thinking.
There are many other examples, but these three quotes demonstrate the context in which he consistently frames the morality of abortion – that it is evil, that it is killing another human to solve a problem, and that the problem of abortion transcends any religious or lofty philosophical questions. His point is that at the most basic level, abortion must be rejected because it is a violation of a very fundamental principle: to respect human life.

Personhood and Catholic Teaching

From the beginning of the Church, the Magisterium has always been clear in its condemnation of abortion at any stage as a moral evil. That said, prior to our modern understanding of fetal development, the Church has not always been firm on this question of personhood.

Thomas Aquinas, for example held a theory of “delayed animation,” which to him meant that ensoulment occurred at quickening – when the fetus began to move. This was believed to be at 40 days gestation for males and 80 days of gestation for females. This theory was based on Aristotle and erroneous medieval notions of embryology.

Aquinas’s position on delayed animation was even cited in the majority decision in the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade, which established abortion as a constitutional right in the US (ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973): IV.3).

Aquinas’s idea was reflected in the imposition of different canonical and civil penalties for early- and late-term abortions. But even still, the Catholic Church has never sanctioned abortion. That has never stopped supporters of legal abortion from using it in their arguments, however.

This was reenforced by a 1974 document by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Declaration on procured abortion. The declaration acknowledged that there was a personhood debate, but, like Pope Francis, stressed that these were not grounds upon which to justify abortion. The congregation stressed that modern science has made it clear when life begins, and that uncertainty about personhood does not justify ending a life (emphasis added):

From the first instant, there is established the program of what this living being will be: a man, this individual man with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization is begun the adventure of a human life, and each of its capacities requires time – a rather lengthy time – to find its place and to be in a position to act. The least that can be said is that present science, in its most evolved state, does not give any substantial support to those who defend abortion. Moreover, it is not up to biological sciences to make a definitive judgment on questions which are properly philosophical and moral such as the moment when a human person is constituted or the legitimacy of abortion. From a moral point of view this is certain: even if a doubt existed concerning whether the fruit of conception is already a human person, it is objectively a grave sin to dare to risk murder. “The one who will be a man is already one” (13).

During the papacy of Saint John Paul II, the Magisterium began to insist that we consider personhood as if it begins at the moment of conception, however. In Evangelium Vitae, John Paul taught this forcefully: “The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life” (60). A few years earlier, the CDF produced a document, Donum Vitae (“Instruction on respect for human life”), which made a similar point: “The human being must be respected – as a person – from the very first instant of his existence” (5.I.1).

Note however, that both the encyclical and the instruction call for the child in the womb “to be respected” as a person from the moment of conception, without definitively teaching that the embryo is a person. Donum Vitae mentions the personhood debate later in the section, stating, “This Congregation is aware of the current debates concerning the beginning of human life, concerning the individuality of the human being and concerning the identity of the human person.” Donum Vitae then quotes from the 1974 CDF document and adds the conclusion, “The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature, but it constantly reaffirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion. This teaching has not been changed and is unchangeable.”

In 2008, this point was again reiterated by the CDF, then led by Cardinal William Levada under Pope Benedict XVI. In the document Dignitas Personae, the Congregation stated, “If Donum vitae, in order to avoid a statement of an explicitly philosophical nature, did not define the embryo as a person, it nonetheless did indicate that there is an intrinsic connection between the ontological dimension and the specific value of every human life” (5).

What does all of this mean? Well, for one thing, it is clear that the Magisterium has acknowledged on multiple occasions that there is a debate about personhood. It is also clear that the Church has not always considered the life of a human person to begin at conception, nor has the Church definitively taught this. That said, the Church has always regarded abortion to be evil from the moment of conception. More recently, the Church has pushed back against the idea that “delayed personhood” is relevant to its position on the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception. It has taught instead that life, from the moment of conception should be treated and respected as a human person. And in this, Pope Francis has always been in line with Catholic Tradition.
---------------------

Note that in the Abortion discussion, the only clear, un-debated Person is the Woman...and Her Physical/Mental Health and Life...as well as personal freedom deserves respect

Note that while the RCC is clear on the evil of Killing...in its Catechism (par. 2309) it allows for "Just War" killings...under Certain Circumstances...and the use of "Prudential Judgement" of all Circumstances involved.

So, given that the RCC allows for the killing of other persons in a "Just War"...I'll ask that question I mentioned at the beginning...Just because a woman CAN reproduce...MUST she do so under Any and All Circumstances?...Yes or No? (Keep in mind that on the order of 6M women in the U.S....at any point in time...have become pregnant due to Force or Coercion...I've got the report to back it up)

I respond to heresy.

I don’t respond to the horrific piece of crap that you are.

Cheers, Lucifer.

convictions.

Our moderator suggested that you either Ignore totally, or engage...guess you can't take a hint.

care to go over them again?…Let’s start with Pope Francis’ statement on fetal Personhood…

(no message)

...the RCC Catechism?...'Where Peter Is'?...

I've got more...if you're confident in your position, explain why you disagree with me...should be no problem, assuming you've given it careful thought.

(no message)

Justifies the Killing of other Persons, knowing that totally innocent victims will be the result. (see "Just Wars")

(no message)

He knows that the Pope is saying "it (personhood) is debated" BY OTHERS given that the Pope had called out abortion doctors as "hitmen". Tyrone is here to propagandize and ignores context ...with a targeted and very deliberate intention.

Pretending Pope Francis was leaning in on abortion is nothing short of despicable...but has been trotted out here maybe 100 times...by one person. Repeat the lie.

If one's WISH is for the Catholic Church to lean in on abortion, one is entitled to that view....a view to which Tyrone and his comrades clearly subscribe. However, one should have the courage and decency to accurately portray who stands with them.

Misrepresenting the views of Pope Francis on this particular topic is nothing short of heinous.

A decent human being would apologize and cease trying to spread a fallacy. Neither will be forthcoming of course...

conception...therefore, you have to ask "WHY?"...and then discern the implications of his statement. As part of my personal discernment, I sought out and read the "Where Peter Is" article by a commentator who was Anti-Abortion, which I've shared with the OF. In it, I found that not only Pope Francis, but the entire Magisterium of the RCC has never definitively stated that Personhood began at conception. Going further in my discernment, I reflected on the RCC's teaching with regard to "Just Wars" where the intrinsic evil of killing other Persons was 'sanctioned', but only under very specific conditions/circumstances.

There's more to discuss here when it comes to Abortion and given the above truths...plus the documented fact that since 1973 polls of all U.S. citizens...including Catholics...show that the vast majority (80-90%) believe that Abortion should be legal and available under certain conditions/circumstances (i.e. not just me)...there's every reason to have that discussion. So, stow your vitriol and join in a reasoned discussion as to why women should be able to choose the option of abortion...as was determined in Roe v. Wade.

Engaging with you has proven to be a waste of time...long, long ago. You are agenda driven and I know well what that agenda is...and from whence it comes.

I don't use "ignore" for whatever reason, but this truly is our last direct exchange while I remain here...as I feel like I need a shower any time these days I bother to read the dreck you almost continually spew...

who share my comments...it is YOU that's outnumbered 8 or 9:1 when it comes to wanting the option of abortion to be legal and available in at least some cases.

You're only doing yourself a disservice by not engaging and learning what you've been missing...but again, it's totally your choice...and never fear, I won't ignore you.

It's disgusting, and everyone can see through it.

them...and a willingness to learn on your part. While you're at it, reflect on the fact that largely Catholic countries, like Ireland and Mexico, have recently amended their Constitutions to allow for legalized abortions.

I acknowledge the difficulty this presents to you, but there is common ground where 'both sides' seek meaningful reductions in the number of abortions, without sacrificing the autonomy and rights of women...keep that in mind.

Knee-jerk reaction of yours.

you as to whether you want to learn why. I'm just trying to help.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

as a public good and not a Free Market based on Profit.

It's not a "basic human right" though, as it requires someone else to deliver the services.

Nothing he says or proposes will ever happen.

(no message)

And who are happy with the freedom to choose their own doctor?

And will doctors and hospitals now be government employees and agencies?

THAT will require a rough transition for EVERYONE.

supp plans.

It's slightly more complicated, but not entirely so. It will actually make companies, and particularly small companies and startups, more competitive.

Roughly double the cost of other wealthy countries.

(no message)

like a very solvable problem.

(no message)

Question, from Laura Ingraham: “What lessons do you think the Democrats should learn from this shutdown saga?”

Answer, from the President of the United States: “Well, the country loses a lot of money when they do this. And they’re not getting much. But nobody gets a lot. But it’s terrible.”

So....I wouldn't hold my breath until that genius comes up with a health care plan if I were you