Is universal health care a moral issue?

[OHGrandma]

I read one of the threads asking people's opinion if they've had universal health care. That thread referred to it as a moral issue. I've never considered gov't run, universal health care to be a moral issue, but a political issue. Is this where our differences originate? Do people who want the gov't run universal health care think it's a moral issue? Do people who don't want gov't run universal health care think it's not a function of our gov't as it exists(and not a moral issue)?

 

My view is, universal health care is not a function of our gov't, and it does not make me an immoral person for thinking that.

[KingM]

I read one of the threads asking people's opinion if they've had universal health care. That thread referred to it as a moral issue. I've never considered gov't run, universal health care to be a moral issue, but a political issue. Is this where our differences originate? Do people who want the gov't run universal health care think it's a moral issue? Do people who don't want gov't run universal health care think it's not a function of our gov't as it exists(and not a moral issue)?

 

My view is, universal health care is not a function of our gov't, and it does not make me an immoral person for thinking that.

 

I can see the argument, along the same lines as caring for the hungry and destitute. The wealthier our society becomes, the more weight this argument carries.

 

From my POV, I have come to support single payer health care on public good grounds. I think the current system is costing us a lot more than it has to, is weakening our international competitiveness, etc., and for evidence I point to all the other countries that get better results with far smaller outlays.

[KidsHappen]

My primary problem with UHC in America is that it is unAmerican. It is not specifically allowed by the consitution. It violates both the letter and intent of the law. There is no way to argue that it is not taking my away my liberty, my right to do what I want with my property, to make my own decisions. And I do believe that it is morally questionable in America. Of course, it is morally applaudable to give but once it is legally required, it is no longer giving. I have no comment or concern with how things are done in other countries.

[pqr]

Absolutely it is a moral issue. It is immoral to take my money and give it to someone else and do so simply because I have money and they may not. (The truth is that I am not in the income bracket that would be effected today, but that is an irrelevance)

 

Theft is a moral issue and theft by fiat is no different.

 

Belief in socialism (which is what belief in Universal Health Care is) also means making moral judgements. A believer judges that taking someone's property is "moral" because the "ends justify the means." I would call such beliefs evidence of a moral bankrupcy but therein lies the debate.

 

 

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”- Sir Winston S. Churchill

Edited July 23, 2009 by pqr

[Impish]

I live in Canada, and absolutely believe that it is morally the right thing to do. The idea that someone cannot afford the healthcare they need is terrible to me. That someone can go bankrupt because of hospital bills is repugnant to me.

 

I truly believe that adequate health care is a right. And it shouldn't come with fears of financial ruin. It shouldn't be based on income. Every citizen should be able to access the help they need, when they need it, without fear.

 

That's my take, anyways.

[KingM]

Theft is a moral issue and theft by fiat is no different.

 

 

So you're against any and all taxes? Or just taxes used to support programs with which you disagree?

 

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”- Sir Winston S. Churchill

 

How did Sir Winston S. Churchill pay for his fight against the Germans? Was there any taxation involved?

 

Here's a question PQR. Aren't you an American citizen currently living in Europe? How did you come to choose Europe as a destination instead of, say, Somalia, where taxation is virtually nonexistant?

[Shelly in the Country]

I see healthcare, in general, as a moral issue since I categorize it as loving our neighbor as ourself....however, since we are trying to fix all of this using the civil government it gets more complex in my mind. There are pros and cons to any kind of healthcare "system". We can come up with some kind of "ideal" on paper, but how it works out in reality can be quite different.

Ideally, as a Christian, I would want all people, everywhere, all around the world to have the best healthcare possible given our current state of technology in the Western world. I want this because I am to love my neighbor as myself, and EVERYONE, all around the world, are my neighbors. I do not believe it is currently possible to achieve such a thing, nor would it be the responsibility of OUR government to muck around with other nations', health care systems. Back to our own country, I would certainly like everyone in OUR country to have the best healthcare possible given the current state of technology, and I think corporately, we do bear some responsibility for folks within our own borders, but I have no idea how to accomplish such a thing. I firmly believe in the law of unintended consequences, and I worry that once we got done messing around with things, we might end up with a system that is less just than the one we have now. In terms of "moral accountability", we can certainly love and help our neighbor who is in need of healthcare without waiting for the government to fix everything for us. I hope that made sense. I keep getting interrupted by toddlers. :001_smile:

Edited July 23, 2009 by Shelly in the Country
forgot a preposition

[LG Gone Wild]

It is immoral, IMO, to vote to take away money from other people. I didn't earn or put in the hard work to earn my neighbor's money, how could I think I was being benevolent by confiscating his earnings for whatever my pet issue? It's not my money, it is his.

 

People do support the common good voluntarily (eg. drives for Children's Hospitals, St. Jude, Shriner's Hospitals, Catholic hospitals, religious charities) and would do it more when not punished and embittered by ridiculous taxation.

Edited July 23, 2009 by LG Gone Wild

[KidsHappen]

So you're against any and all taxes? Or just taxes used to support programs with which you disagree?

 

 

 

How did Sir Winston S. Churchill pay for his fight against the Germans? Was there any taxation involved?

 

Here's a question PQR. Aren't you an American citizen currently living in Europe? How did you come to choose Europe as a destination instead of, say, Somalia, where taxation is virtually nonexistant?

 

I am not pqr but I can state that I am against any taxes not specifically allowed in the constitution for the purposes outlined in the constituion.

[KidsHappen]

 

Theft is a moral issue and theft by fiat is no different.

 

A believer judges that taking someone's property is "moral" because the "ends justify the means." I would call such beliefs evidence of a moral bankrupcy but therein lies the debate.

 

 

:iagree: Exactly.

[TXMomof4]

I see healthcare, in general, as a moral issue since I categorize it as loving our neighbor as ourself....however, since we are trying to fix all of this using the civil government it gets more complex in my mind. There are pros and cons to any kind of healthcare "system". We can come up with some kind of "ideal" on paper, but how it works out reality can be quite different.

Ideally, as a Christian, I would want all people, everywhere, all around the world to have the best healthcare possible given our current state of technology in the Western world. I want this because I am to love my neighbor as myself, and EVERYONE, all around the world, are my neighbors. I do not believe it is currently possible to achieve such a thing, nor would it be the responsibility of OUR government to muck around with other nations', health care systems. Back to our own country, I would certainly like everyone in OUR country to have the best healthcare possible given the current state of technology, and I think corporately, we do bear some responsibility for folks within our own borders, but I have no idea how to accomplish such a thing. I firmly believe in the law of unintended consequences, and I worry that once we got done messing around with things, we might end up with a system that is less just than the one we have now. In terms of "moral accountability", we can certainly love and help our neighbor who is in need of healthcare without waiting for the government to fix everything for us. I hope that made sense. I keep getting interrupted by toddlers. :001_smile:

 

:iagree: I believe caring for those in need is a moral issue. However, how many times have I heard tht the gov. can't legislate morality? I've said in relation to other topics and I'll say it again here - if people would do what they're supposed to and truly care for others, a lot of these issues would disappear. I'm afraid I'm living in la la land though.

[KingM]

I am not pqr but I can state that I am against any taxes not specifically allowed in the constitution for the purposes outlined in the constituion.

 

The Constitution doesn't specify what kinds of taxes at all, it just says that Congress is authorized to levy and collect taxes.

 

But accepting your point for the sake of argument, does this mean that if a constitutional ammendment were passed that explicitly mentioned universal health care that you would be in favor of it? That is, are you only against government sponsored health care because you don't see that it's allowed by the Constitution?

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

It appears that the proponents of UHC are implying there is a new American Dream.

 

In America you can get a good education, work hard your entire adult life, hopefully provide your family with a nice home, good food and those luxury items that make life enjoyable, and someday you will be successful enough that you will be forced to give all that the government decides you don't need back to those who, unlike you, haven't worked as hard.

 

There is a recipe for success and capitalism if I ever saw one. (NOT!)

[Greta]

I live in Canada, and absolutely believe that it is morally the right thing to do. The idea that someone cannot afford the healthcare they need is terrible to me. That someone can go bankrupt because of hospital bills is repugnant to me.

 

I truly believe that adequate health care is a right. And it shouldn't come with fears of financial ruin. It shouldn't be based on income. Every citizen should be able to access the help they need, when they need it, without fear.

 

That's my take, anyways.

 

I agree with this, and that is why it is a moral issue to me.

 

The "every man for himself" philosophy just doesn't sit right with me. I would prefer a world where people help one another. I do not believe that any of us live in isolation. We are all connected, and everyone is better off when everyone is better off.

[pqr]

So you're against any and all taxes? Or just taxes used to support programs with which you disagree?

 

 

No and No again.

 

 

How did Sir Winston S. Churchill pay for his fight against the Germans? Was there any taxation involved?

 

I am not against taxes, I am against taxes specifically raised to take from one and give to another. Taxes that pay for defense, infrastructure even hospitals I have no truck with.

 

Taxes that take from MR X with the specific intention of using that money to give to Mr. Y I have a major issue with.

 

Here's a question PQR. Aren't you an American citizen currently living in Europe? How did you come to choose Europe as a destination instead of, say, Somalia, where taxation is virtually nonexistent?

 

I go where my employer sends me because I believe that I must support my family. If I needed to go to Somalia or some other equally unpleasant place and the result was that I could support my family I would. I left my country (temporarily) to support my family because I believe that to me a man's duty. That does not mean that I buy into the socialist malaise that is seen in much of Europe and that certainly does not mean that I want what I earn to pay for someone else's needs.

 

I answered your question. Now my turn.

 

Explain the difference between supporting UHC and the Marxist principle espoused in the lines "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." and tell me how Churchill in his quote was wrong.

[KidsHappen]

The Constitution doesn't specify what kinds of taxes at all, it just says that Congress is authorized to levy and collect taxes.

 

But accepting your point for the sake of argument, does this mean that if a constitutional ammendment were passed that explicitly mentioned universal health care that you would be in favor of it? That is, are you only against government sponsored health care because you don't see that it's allowed by the Constitution?

 

Well actually it I believe it specifies what kind of taxes it can levy and collect and what purposes they are authorized for. We needed a specific amendment to allow income tax.

 

I would not be in favor of a constitutional amendment and we would strongly fight one. But no this is not my own problem with UHC as I have stated in other posts in this thread. I am morally opposed to it as well.

 

I really have to run to the airport now but I will check back here later.

[KingM]

Explain the difference between supporting UHC and the Marxist principle espoused in the lines "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." and tell me how Churchill in his quote was wrong.

 

As I mentioned, I argue for health care primarily as a public good, like the highways or other infrastructure costs. We pay more for worse results in this country and it's starting to hurt our competiveness in the international arena.

 

I don't think UHC is a silver bullet or that gum drops will start falling from the sky. But I think the health care mess is getting worse and the current system is severely broken. I see UHC as the best among bad options.

[Greta]

In America you can get a good education, work hard your entire adult life, hopefully provide your family with a nice home, good food and those luxury items that make life enjoyable, and someday you will be successful enough that you will be forced to give all that the government decides you don't need back to those who, unlike you, haven't worked as hard.

 

The reality is, in America, you can work your way through college to get a good education, work hard at a professional job, and then lose EVERYTHING when a child gets sick. You can end up homeless and bankrupt from medical bills. Or your child could simply die from not getting that care at all. And what's really galling about this is how much of that money ended up NOT with the doctors and hospitals, but in the pockets of the insurance companies. There HAS to be a better way.

[Perry]

you will be forced to give all that the government decides you don't need back to those who, unlike you, haven't worked as hard.

 

 

Many of those without access to health care are some of the hardest working people in this country. They don't have insurance because the system stinks, not because they are lazy.

[Lovedtodeath]

Ideally, as a Christian, I would want all people, everywhere, all around the world to have the best healthcare possible

Take heart. It won't be long...

 

Daniel 2:44 And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

[Melissa in FL]

I read one of the threads asking people's opinion if they've had universal health care. That thread referred to it as a moral issue. I've never considered gov't run, universal health care to be a moral issue, but a political issue. Is this where our differences originate? Do people who want the gov't run universal health care think it's a moral issue? Do people who don't want gov't run universal health care think it's not a function of our gov't as it exists(and not a moral issue)?

 

My view is, universal health care is not a function of our gov't, and it does not make me an immoral person for thinking that.

 

Hmm, you may be on to something. To me it is not a moral issue or maybe it is. Morally, I donate to a lot of different places, some who help those that need it with healthcare costs. But to tax me more when it is not my choice to pay for someone elses healthcare, to me that's morally wrong.

Melissa

[usetoschool]

I do believe it is a moral issue. To begin with, forced charity is not charity. It takes away the responsibility and rewards of making charitable decisions regarding your own family and friends and community and turns it into a bureaucratic pile of paper with numbers and checklists. It removes the personal relationship from the process.

 

You also do not have the right to take other peoples money or property for your own use and if you don't have that right, you cannot delegate that right to an elected authority, no matter how high the majority vote or how laudible or virtuous the plan seems to be.

 

I think the government handouts and concept of free are creating a generation of people who believe everything is a right that they are entitled to. I want people to eat, but not by giving them a fish every day and making them lazy and keeping them under my control, but by teaching them how to fish for themselves and making them strong and hard working and full of a sense of earned and deserved self-worth.

 

I also believe debt is wrong and this plan will move the country to a place where our debts will be 100% of GDP.

[KingM]

Take heart. It won't be long...

 

Daniel 2:44 And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

 

The Book of Daniel was written between 2200 and 2600 years ago, depending on which scholars you follow. I think we'd be well served to work on this problem on our own in the meanwhile.

[pqr]

pqr stated

 

I answered your question. Now my turn.

 

Explain the difference between supporting UHC and the Marxist principle espoused in the lines "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." and tell me how Churchill in his quote was wrong.

 

 

As I mentioned, I argue for health care primarily as a public good, like the highways or other infrastructure costs. We pay more for worse results in this country and it's starting to hurt our competiveness in the international arena.

 

I don't think UHC is a silver bullet or that gum drops will start falling from the sky. But I think the health care mess is getting worse and the current system is severely broken. I see UHC as the best among bad options.

 

 

So in other words you will not or can not answer the question. Perhaps if you do ever answer you would also care to comment on Plutarch when he said The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits

 

 

Your logic defines those who support UHC and as Churchill said "its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"

Edited July 23, 2009 by pqr

[usetoschool]

Many of those without access to health care are some of the hardest working people in this country. They don't have insurance because the system stinks, not because they are lazy.

 

That seem like kind of broad generalization - I personally know people who do not have health insurance because they are lazy, uneducated, self-indulgent etc.

 

And there is not one single person in this country that does not have access to health care. They just don't have access to health care paid for by insurance. Although they certainly have access to health care paid for by charities or by making monthly payments themself.

[Sara R]

I can see the argument, along the same lines as caring for the hungry and destitute. The wealthier our society becomes, the more weight this argument carries.

 

Do you really think we're getting wealthier? Do you have any evidence to support that assumption? If I recall correctly all of the "economic growth" of the past 10 years has been offset by increased debt, which means it wasn't real economic growth at all. People were just acting wealthier with borrowed money.

 

The other problem is that the definition of "adequate" health care changes all the time, and that's quickly becoming unaffordable on a mass scale.

[Shelly in the Country]

Take heart. It won't be long...

 

Daniel 2:44 And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

 

 

:iagree: Thank you for the words of comfort.

 

I actually spent a good portion of my childhood uninsured so I do know what it is like. For that reason I would like to take issue with anyone who describes uninsured folks as "not as hard working". My parents both worked very hard to take care of me. They often worked more than one job a piece. There were still times we could not obtain health insurance for one reason or another. BUT I am still not in favor of socialized medicine....at least not any version I have ever heard proposed. Although my hard working parents would like some kind of socialized medicine. We disagree here.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

The Book of Daniel was written between 2200 and 2600 years ago, depending on which scholars you follow. I think we'd be well served to work on this problem on our own in the meanwhile.

I was offering hope for a Christian. I don't appreciate "someone with a secular worldview" butting in with comments that do not apply to my reason for posting. Edited July 23, 2009 by Lovedtodeath
not an atheist.

[Melinda in VT]

So in order to level the playing field we should join you in your mistake??? If it hurts your competiveness then change your system. A failure on the part of your nation does not constitute a necessity on the part of mine. We will be happy to take your jobs.

 

:confused:

 

I'm confused by the pronouns. When you say "we should join you in your mistake"--who is the "we" and who is the "you"? Again, when you say "We will be happy to take your jobs"--who are "we" and "you"?

 

Do you perhaps erroneously think KingM is not an American citizen, speaking of jobs leaving America and of America's competitiveness internationally?

[pqr]

:confused:

 

I'm confused by the pronouns. When you say "we should join you in your mistake"--who is the "we" and who is the "you"? Again, when you say "We will be happy to take your jobs"--who are "we" and "you"?

 

Do you perhaps erroneously think KingM is not an American citizen, speaking of jobs leaving America and of America's competitiveness internationally?

 

 

Mea Culpa I did think that he was European.

 

As he is an American I am even more surprised that he would make such comments because damage to our competiveness would not be mitigated by paying even more taxes, by driving even more businesses and accounts offshore, and by raising costs.

Edited July 23, 2009 by pqr

[Kari C in SC]

I live in Canada, and absolutely believe that it is morally the right thing to do. The idea that someone cannot afford the healthcare they need is terrible to me. That someone can go bankrupt because of hospital bills is repugnant to me.

 

I truly believe that adequate health care is a right. And it shouldn't come with fears of financial ruin. It shouldn't be based on income. Every citizen should be able to access the help they need, when they need it, without fear.

 

That's my take, anyways.

 

:iagree:

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

The reality is, in America, you can work your way through college to get a good education, work hard at a professional job, and then lose EVERYTHING when a child gets sick. You can end up homeless and bankrupt from medical bills. Or your child could simply die from not getting that care at all. And what's really galling about this is how much of that money ended up NOT with the doctors and hospitals, but in the pockets of the insurance companies. There HAS to be a better way.

 

Many of those without access to health care are some of the hardest working people in this country. They don't have insurance because the system stinks, not because they are lazy.

 

You may believe there can be a better system but why does it have to be paid for by those who earn more than $X per year?

 

Why should John Doe work hard his whole life to have the privilege of paying some total stranger's medical bills?

 

My point is that individual property is still that-personal property. What is next step? Now that I'm an empty nester and have paid off my mortgage does the government has the right to decide that my house is too big for my little family of 2? So they will seize my house that a lifetime of work has paid for and reassign me to a smaller home adequate to my "needs" and give my "big" home to a larger family. Taking my cash is no different than taking my house, my car or my TV set. It is still my property.

 

Take the education system. Theoretically that is universal. Yet there are constant complaints that schools are better in wealthier districts because they are able to raise more taxes. If in all the years we've had publicly funded education no one has been able to fix that problem, what do you think the chances are that UHC has a shot?

 

The health and insurance system may be broken but the principles behind this fix are certainly un-American. While you may feel that the wealthier have a moral obligation to help those who are less fortunate that doesn't equal a need for federally legislated theft.

[KingM]

I was offering hope for a Christian. I don't appreciate an atheist butting in with comments that do not apply to my reason for posting.

 

I'm saying that I think we should try to solve our own problems. I believe God would hope/expect for us to do so rather than fatalistically waiting for the end of the world.

 

In any event, if you do not wish for people to comment on your posts, a private message might be more appropriate.

 

Oh, and I'm not an atheist. :)

[KingM]

Do you really think we're getting wealthier? Do you have any evidence to support that assumption? If I recall correctly all of the "economic growth" of the past 10 years has been offset by increased debt, which means it wasn't real economic growth at all. People were just acting wealthier with borrowed money.

 

 

No, I don't think we're wealthier than we were ten years ago. But we are wealthier than 50 years or 100 years ago. I said that this argument carries more weight, but I think it still has a ways to go, especially as we have some other absolutely critical needs, such as a looming energy crisis. If the lights go out, the health care debate will be moot.

[Impish]

Here's what I don't understand. And I'm not being sarcastic or snarky.

 

We pay less in taxes a month off our pay cheques than I've yet to hear an American friend paying in insurance premiums. So I really don't understand how it would be theft, when in reality, you should have MORE income due to not paying high insurance rates, copays, etc.

[Lovedtodeath]

I don't completely disagree with you. I just don't appreciate being slammed for posting a scripture that offers hope to someone who has said that they are a believer. I have been using PMs more often lately... duely noted. Really? To me, you come across as an atheist in all of your posts. I am surprised and apologize for misunderstanding.

[KingM]

Explain the difference between supporting UHC and the Marxist principle espoused in the lines "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." and tell me how Churchill in his quote was wrong.

 

So in other words you will not or can not answer the question. Perhaps if you do ever answer you would also care to comment on Plutarch when he said The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits

 

 

I thought my answer was clear. I'm neither going to argue in favor of the Marxist generalization nor against Churchill's statement.

 

What I am going to argue is that health care has reached a level where the ad-hoc health care system in the United States is beginning to cripple the nation economically. So I would argue that fixing this problem is akin to the government building a highway or defending the seas against piracy as a public good.

 

Don't set up a Marxist straw man, because I'm not interested in defending Marxism.

[Kari C in SC]

That seem like kind of broad generalization - I personally know people who do not have health insurance because they are lazy, uneducated, self-indulgent etc.

 

And there is not one single person in this country that does not have access to health care. They just don't have access to health care paid for by insurance. Although they certainly have access to health care paid for by charities or by making monthly payments themself.

 

Actually, that is not always true. When my dh broke his collar bone - he was uninsured. Instead of heading to the er, we tried to piece meal his care together to avoid a huge ER bill. We were able to do it, but ONLY because we had enough cash to cover it. Each doctor required full payment up front. If you did not have that money, you would be stuck with the ER and crazy costs. Yes, you would get immediate care, but not follow up care unless you went back to the ER for your follow up. A huge waste of resources.

 

Right now, my dh has dental insurance. Even with it - we are paying $900 for his dental work. The total bill was $2500. They required us to pay $1800 up front in cash - (credit was available for a large fee). Then they bill the insurance and will refund any overage we paid. What would a family do if they didn't happen to have an EXTRA $900 to pay that is ABOVE and BEYOND the patient responsibility? Again, we have been fortunate, to have enough savings to cover that. Most of my friends would not have had the in savings and would have had to not have the work done.

 

Let's recap.

 

We have Blue Cross Blue Shield of SC for my dh. He has dental coverage. We are doing the "right thing" and paying for his coverage. We aren't having anyone else pay his coverage.

 

He has a rotten tooth and needs a root canal and crown.

 

They charge $2500 for that service.

 

They require $1800 up front in CASH.

 

The insurance will be reimbursing them for $1600 of this and we will be left with a $900 responsibility.

 

We had to have an ADDITIONAL $900 on top of what we actual owe just to be SEEN.

 

All this is for ONE TOOTH!

 

If this isn't a broken system when one tooth costs more than the amount of my husband's take home pay in one month - then I surely don't know what is a broken system.

[KingM]

I don't completely disagree with you. I just don't appreciate being slammed for posting a scripture that offers hope to someone who has said that they are a believer. I have been using PMs more often lately... duely noted.

 

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to come across as slamming. I was disagreeing with the "don't worry" part of your post, since I find this issue very worrying and think we should set about trying to resolve it in the here and now.

 

Really? To me, you come across as an atheist in all of your posts. I am surprised and apologize for misunderstanding.

 

As I stated in a previous discussion with you I am a universalist with a secular worldview. I'm not offended to be called an atheist, just clarifying.

[Lovedtodeath]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to come across as slamming. I was disagreeing with the "don't worry" part of your post, since I find this issue very worrying and think we should set about trying to resolve it in the here and now.

 

 

 

As I stated in a previous discussion with you I am a universalist with a secular worldview. I'm not offended to be called an atheist, just clarifying.

Actually, I didn't say "don't worry" I said "take heart" ;)

 

Thanks for the clarification. I must've missed it before or forgotten it in my greyheadedness.

[Elizabeth Conley]

I would like to see substantial government subsidies for vaccinations, because vaccines serve the common good. (No vaccine debates please. I won't respond.) I'd like to see government funds spent on medical research of serious diseases. This too is for the common good.

 

I'd also like to see government funding for the most expensive and unusual types of medical treatment. People's finances should not be broken beyond repair when paying for unusual, bleeding edge technology that saves lives. It is beneficial to our population when the very best, most promising surgeons are able to practice the sort of unusual, somewhat risky medical procedure that can revolutionize common practice when perfected.

 

I do not want to see universal health coverage for mid-range health problems. If you have the common cold, a bad sun burn, moderate obesity, high blood pressure, etc, I think you should pay for your treatment if you can reasonably afford to. These are conditions for which patient behavior can play a large part in the cost of treatment. I think the patient should be highly motivated to hold down costs.

 

I do not think that MDs should diagnose hypochondria without referring the patient to a psychiatrist. A lot of money is spent treating conditions doctors don't believe to be real. It's not reasonable to keep spending insurance dollars or tax dollars on something that's not real. It's time to take a more straight forward approach.

 

It should be illegal for care to have lower price for the insured, a lower still price for certain policy holders, and the highest price of all for the uninsured. I'm pretty sure that if Walmart charged poor people 12 dollars for a gallon of milk, 6 dollars to the middle class, and 2 dollars to the wealthy, there would be protests. Someone would find a way to label this as discriminatory.

 

We should do everything in our power to get the "managed" out of "managed care". It doesn't make sense to reduce health care cost by paying the salaries of managed care CEOs, middle managers, and paper pushing functionaries. That does not reduce health care costs to the consumer, it raises health care costs to the consumer while reducing the amount of health care the consumer receives for each dollar spent. This should be obvious to all. Since nobody fouls up a management task faster, more expensively or more thoroughly than the U.S. Government, every effort should be make to keep them out of the business of managing health care.

[pqr]

Originally Posted by pqr

Explain the difference between supporting UHC and the Marxist principle espoused in the lines "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." and tell me how Churchill in his quote was wrong.

 

So in other words you will not or can not answer the question. Perhaps if you do ever answer you would also care to comment on Plutarch when he said The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits

 

I thought my answer was clear. I'm neither going to argue in favor of the Marxist generalization nor against Churchill's statement.

 

What I am going to argue is that health care has reached a level where the ad-hoc health care system in the United States is beginning to cripple the nation economically. So I would argue that fixing this problem is akin to the government building a highway or defending the seas against piracy as a public good.

 

Don't set up a Marxist straw man, because I'm not interested in defending Marxism.

 

 

Your answer was clear, it was a cop out pure and simple.

 

UHC has a great deal in common with socialist and Marxist beliefs. You can argue all you want about fixing problems, but your method has the tenets of Marxist belief. If you do not wish to defend Marxism and socialism then do not argue for UHC, argue for tort reform etc but not UHC.

 

Taking my money for the specific purpose of giving it to someone else is not the same as defending our ships from pirates, but it is very close to what defines UHC supporters "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

 

If you believe in this then argue it but do not hide from what your beliefs mean.

Edited July 23, 2009 by pqr

[LeeAnn Balbirona]

Take the education system. Theoretically that is universal. Yet there are constant complaints that schools are better in wealthier districts because they are able to raise more taxes. If in all the years we've had publicly funded education no one has been able to fix that problem, what do you think the chances are that UHC has a shot?

 

If Universal Health Care goes through, maybe the answer to inequal education is to have centralized planning and funding for public education as well. It works for the French.

[KingM]

Taking my money for the specific purpose of giving it to someone else is not the same as defending our ships from pirates, but it is very close to what defines UHC supporters "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

 

If you believe in this then argue it but do not hide from what your beliefs mean.

 

Actually, if you believe this, why don't you argue it, since you're the one who keeps making this claim.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

If Universal Health Care goes through, maybe the answer to inequal education is to have centralized planning and funding for public education as well. It works for the French.

 

Except of course that it has thus far been considered that education is not within the purview of the federal government but rests individually with the states.

 

Our constitution and state's rights are there for a reason. Sometimes they protect us from our own best intentions and their inevitable outcomes.

 

Exactly like UHC.

[Erica in PA]

It bothers me that terms are being mixed in the current debate. There's a difference between health *care* and health *insurance.* People are routinely polled about whether they support universal health care, when the real question is do they support government funded insurance for everyone, regardless of income.

 

Do I want everyone to be able to be treated by doctors when they are sick (i.e. health*care*)? Yes. Do I believe that everyone has a right to health insurance to pay for that treatment? No. Able bodied adults who make various choices in their lives that prevent them from having health insurance-- no, I don't believe they have a right for the rest of us to pay for that for them.

[Colleen]

Yes, it's a moral issue.

[Lovedtodeath]

It bothers me that terms are being mixed in the current debate. There's a difference between health *care* and health *insurance.* People are routinely polled about whether they support universal health care, when the real question is do they support government funded insurance for everyone, regardless of income.

 

Do I want everyone to be able to be treated by doctors when they are sick (i.e. health*care*)? Yes. Do I believe that everyone has a right to health insurance to pay for that treatment? No. Able bodied adults who make various choices in their lives that prevent them from having health insurance-- no, I don't believe they have a right for the rest of us to pay for that for them.

I will say it again... the fact is that when I had insurance it covered only about 10% of my claims, so paying for it was and is not worth it to me. Make it work and I might reconsider. I don't appreciate being condemned for deciding that health insurance is a joke.

[pqr]

Originally Posted by pqr

Explain the difference between supporting UHC and the Marxist principle espoused in the lines "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." and tell me how Churchill in his quote was wrong.

 

pqr's response when KingM refused to reply

 

So in other words you will not or can not answer the question. Perhaps if you do ever answer you would also care to comment on Plutarch when he said The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits

 

Actually, if you believe this, why don't you argue it, since you're the one who keeps making this claim.

 

Because I do not believe in UHC, you do so I asked you to

 

"Explain the difference between supporting UHC and the Marxist principle espoused in the lines "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." and tell me how Churchill in his quote was wrong."

 

Where do you differ? It is a simple question, but apparently one that has you in a quandary. Perhaps this is because, as I assert, UHC has tenets in Marxism and Socialism.

Edited July 23, 2009 by pqr

[KingM]

"Explain the difference between supporting UHC and the Marxist principle espoused in the lines "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." and tell me how Churchill in his quote was wrong."

 

Where do you differ? It is a simple question, but apparently one that has you in a quandary. Perhaps this is because, as I assert, UHC has tenets in Marxism and Socialism.

 

I said, "Here's why I believe UHC is a public good," and you continued to assert that it was Marxism without addressing my points, except to say no it's not. So we're not really having a discussion, are we?

 

LovedtoDeath, I share your frustration about health insurance, but doing what you've done would terrify me. What do you plan to do if you have an incident that requires catastrophic costs?