We need more Canadians!

[Frances]

This was a line from a very interesting documentary I saw last night that explored the history of the adoption of universal healthcare in Canada and contrasted it with the history of healthcare in the US (pre-Affordable Healthcare Act). What I was most taken with in the film was all of the interviews with the many Canadian citizens. When asked about the need for universal healthcare in their country, everyone of them replied with something in the vein of "It's a moral imperative that we take care of others." or  "We are all in this together and must help our fellow citizens." or  "As long as my healthcare needs are being met, I don't mind helping to pay for the needs of those who are less fortunate." 

 

My friend and I were discussing the film afterwards and were puzzling over how different the above views seem to be from those in America, especially given the fact that the US is a much more religious country. I was raised Catholic and saw my church emphasize and my parents daily put into practice the verse, "Whatsoever you do for the least of my brothers, that you do unto me." This also seemed to be one of the main tenants of the Methodist church I attended for several years as an adult. Although I'm no longer a practicing Christian, support for universal healthcare seems to align with what I was taught about Christian principles.

 

I know there are many other Christian faiths besides Catholicism and Methodists (and likely many variations on those). I've been reading with fascination all of the "Ask a religion" threads and in that vein I have a questions for Christians. If you are opposed to universal healthcare, how does that fit with your Christian faith? Those of other religions are absolutely free to answer also. I only emphasized Christians because Christianity is the primary religion in both the US and Canada.

[dbmamaz]

I cant really answer your question - i came because hubby is canadian and promises we'll retire there!  But . . I go to a UU church, and most of the members support universal healthcare.  I've often seen a comic on facebook with Jesus saying "I cant heal you, you have pre-existing conditions" or similarly refusing to feed the poor because they arent working hard enough or havent had a drug test.  I really cannot understand how people can call themselves good people and get SO angry about people they dont like being given basics for survival.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Lots of logical fallacies there.  You can believe in taking care of others and not be Canadian or believe in their healthcare system.  You  can help your fellow citizen and not be Canadian or believe in their healthcare system.  You can pay for the healthcare of others and not be Canadian or believe in their healthcare system.  

[Frances]

Lots of logical fallacies there.  You can believe in taking care of others and not be Canadian or believe in their healthcare system.  You  can help your fellow citizen and not be Canadian or believe in their healthcare system.  You can pay for the healthcare of others and not be Canadian or believe in their healthcare system.  

 

I think maybe I didn't explain my question clearly enough. I am not saying only Canadians care for other or help their fellow citizens. The impression I got from the film was that the majority of Canadians, regardless of political or religious affiliation support healthcare for all citizens. I was trying to contrast to the views in the US, where many, including many Christians, oppose any type of universal healthcare. And I was trying to make sense of Christian opposition to it given the Christian principles I was taught.

 

And I'm not saying the only way to show you care for or help others it approve of some type of universal healthcare. From my understanding, countries with some type of universal healthcare have better health outcomes and lower costs than the US. So if you as a Christian oppose some type of universal healthcare is it because you don't agree with the views of the Canadians expressed in the film about helping their fellow citizens and it being a moral imperative to provide healthcare for all or do you think there are other ways to achieve this besides universal healthcare?

[Jean in Newcastle]

I would assume that most people of any race or religion who oppose universal healthcare think that there are other ways to help their fellow citizens and to provide access to healthcare to all.  Everyone I know who opposes it does think that there are other ways to go about it.  Your base presupposition seems to be that opposing universal healthcare means being uncaring and un"Christian".  I would argue that that presupposition is wrong.   

[Frances]

I would assume that most people of any race or religion who oppose universal healthcare think that there are other ways to help their fellow citizens and to provide access to healthcare to all.  Everyone I know who opposes it does think that there are other ways to go about it.  Your base presupposition seems to be that opposing universal healthcare means being uncaring and un"Christian".  I would argue that that presupposition is wrong.   

 

I would love to hear about the other ways to go about it. I'm trying to understand the views of those Christians that support the US system where many do not have access to affordable healthcare but oppose some type of universal healthcare. I am certainly not an expert on the subject and am not familiar with other systems that have been proven to work.

[Jane in NC]

I would assume that most people of any race or religion who oppose universal healthcare think that there are other ways to help their fellow citizens and to provide access to healthcare to all.  Everyone I know who opposes it does think that there are other ways to go about it.  Your base presupposition seems to be that opposing universal healthcare means being uncaring and un"Christian".  I would argue that that presupposition is wrong.   

 

Most people whom I know who oppose universal healthcare do so because they believe that individuals should care for themselves and their immediate families.  In fact, the guy sitting next to me on a plane the other day noted that he does not want to support any social welfare programs--period.  I suspect that this is tied to the importance that Americans feel for individual rights over the collective.

[Frances]

Most people whom I know who oppose universal healthcare do so because they believe that individuals should care for themselves and their immediate families.  In fact, the guy sitting next to me on a plane the other day noted that he does not want to support any social welfare programs--period.  I suspect that this is tied to the importance that Americans feel for individual rights over the collective.

This is exactly the sentiment I am trying to understand in relation to the Christian principles I was taught. In my work group, all those who oppose universal healthcare are Christians and their reason is some variation on the theme above and/or that they don't trust our government. All those who are not Christians support universal healthcare. Although outside of work, I do know many Christians who support universal healthcare.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I'm too lazy to look up statistics (and I'm supposed to be folding and putting away laundry) but a good many of the people who have  benefited  from the ACA were eligible for Medicare or Medicaid and just had not signed up.  I've gone to low cost health clinics where doctors who are working off certain loans donate their time a couple of times a week.  I know a number of people who have banded together informally with other people to take care of their communities health needs - no government involvement necessary and a very high level of caring for their fellow man.  These were Christians and their Christianity influenced their decision to help each other out in this way, though I wouldn't be super surprised to find that there are humanists or others who have done the same. 

 

My dh was a Canadian nurse who gladly became an American nurse because of the much better standard of care in this country.  (His opinion from being a nurse in multiple hospitals, clinics and settings in multiple cities in both countries).  

[Indian summer]

Canadian here. I just want to clarify a few things. Health care is a provincial thing, not a national program, so it can look very different from one province to the next. I can only speak from the perspective of the province where I live, but from what I understand about "Obamacare" ( I think I've heard it called that?) it's a very different program than our provincial Medicare (that's what we call it for all citizens, not just seniors). Am I correct in assuming you all have to purchase health insurance? We don't have to, ours is a tax based program where every resident is issued a card used for obtaining basic medical care - doctors visits, hospital stays etc. you can purchase extra health insurance that will cover extras, like some of the more elective things, private hospital rooms and such. But the basics are covered whether you buy additional insurance or not.

 

I didn't think that's how your program was, but I may have gotten the wrong impression.

[Ipsey]

"If a man does not work, neither shall he eat." 2 Thess 3:10

"The poor you will always have with you."   Matt 26:11

 

These are verses that are often used when fundamentalist Christians in the US answer the questions about service and wealth distribution and the belief about poor people (they aren't working hard enough. They'll always be around, so it doesn't make sense to invest too much in them). I won't explain further, but I'm sure you can make the connections yourself.

 

Also, in the US, there is a very high value placed on freedom and individuality, and that's strongly reflected in American Christianity as well, which I think also relates to the topic at hand. "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps."

 

Then, we segue into the dislike American Christians may have of the ungodly government and the fear of godless Socialism, which connects, of course, with universal health care discussion. Not to mention the belief that if the government would just get out of the way and stop taxing people that the churches would be able to cover all medical and basic needs of the society.

 

These were common arguments and the backdrop of my experiences during 20 years of Christianity here in the US.

 

ETA: I think, the phrase "God helps those who helps themselves" is also pretty popular in America, though it's not actually in the Bible. It connects to the mindset.

 

 

 

[kbutton]

Some of the reluctance to move toward universal healthcare stems from differing views of the role of government and how the government is set up. Many of us feel that our system of government was designed as a limited one with specific powers and responsibilities. Those powers and responsibilities have been stretched and tweaked for a long time without much acknowledgement that we aren't really using the government as designed. If the government had a different role from the beginning, many of us would not be (as) upset. The fact that our government on paper and our government in real life don't match up is a sticking point on many issues, not just healthcare. Some people feel that if we returned to the government that we have on paper, it would give the private sector, religious charities, etc. the room to meet needs in other ways. Many people feel that things are too far gone to do so, and that to meet needs, the government must step in. Many people (including some on both sides) have reservations about HOW the government will do this. I grew up in a very rural area in a swing state and now live in one of the fastest growing areas in the country (more reliably conservative). The idea that the government can craft a solution that meets the needs of people in both areas is ridiculous in my mind, not to mention adding in other areas with other demographics, economic situations, etc. I also believe that if Americans want their government to do these things, they should have the integrity to state up front that they want to live in a ___________ type of country with a government that reflects that. Trying to stretch what we have so that what's on paper is just putting a bandaid on all kinds of real problems and kicking the can down the road. Going back to what's on paper is also fraught with potholes and would open it's own can of worms, not matter how ideal some people see it (I tend to think this would be best in the long run, but claim no special wisdom about how to get there without creating real problems for many people, including myself). People don't seem to realize or acknowledge that  the nature of how our government should work or how to maintain what was set up has been debated fervently since the founding of the nation (though to be sure, the scope of how those views would play out was probably more narrow since so much has changed in over 200 years). Our founders were not in one accord about nearly as much as we'd like to think.

 

I am trying to state this an neutrally as possible, but for many of the Christians that I know this is a big part of the equation (limited government).

 

If we were to completely redesign government in America, as a Christian, I would have a really hard time working through all of the possibilities myself. I don't think the Bible mandates a specific type of government, and I believe that there are potentially many ways that Christians could parse out how they believe the government should be set up. However, the size of country, the diversity of its citizens, etc. complicates this even more in my mind than if it were a small and relatively homogenous country. I do believe that the founders purposely tried to make a government that was limited in order to allow people the most people the most freedom possible to pursue their own goals in life; I think they also envisioned that a streamlined government would be more flexible over time (but always hard to maintain). I do believe that at least some of that design was rooted in a Christian ethic, but I don't believe it's mandated by the Bible as the only way to do government. I suspect that many Christians I know would part company with me on the second part of that sentence. :-)

 

I think it's particularly American (but not necessarily wrong) to view redistribution of wealth (even when it's distributed as healthcare) with suspicion. I am quite certain my grandmother has never lived above the poverty line in her life, so I am not immune to the idea that we need a safety net. She has certainly benefitted from it. OTOH, my husband is in a line of work where he sees that safety net abused and fleeced many times per day.

 

 

[Frances]

I just want to clear up a few misconceptions about my question, I guess I'm not being very clear. I'm not saying universal healthcare is the only way to go, in fact, I asked for other options to the US system and universal healthcare. I was just highlighting universal healthcare because of the film I saw and because from all of the research I've read, it results in lower costs and better health outcomes than in the US. Also, the ACA is not a type of universal healthcare, so I'm not comparing our new system to some type of universal healthcare.

 

And I realize that there are many types of ways that both Christians and non-Christians have worked in the US to provide healthcare for those in need. But even with that, people are still going bankrupt due to health expenses and not getting their basic healthcare needs met. And that doesn't seem to happen in Canada, at least according to the film I saw.

 

Thanks for the Canadians weighing in to explain their system. The film focused primarily on Saskatchewan, as that was the first province to adopt a new system. And it did explain that each province has its own program, although there are some inter-provinincial agreements to deal with very specialized care.

[kbutton]

Oh, just thought of something else...not all Christians believe this way, but some do. Some Christians believe in a heatlh, wealth, prosperity type of theology. If you do what God says, you'll be blessed (probably grossly oversimplified, but I give no time to this kind of thinking). Helping someone else out might interfere with how God is dealing with a person who has made poor choices. I do not believe this way, nor do the majority of Christians I know. However, it's a belief that does sometimes influence us without us realizing it. I think most human beings have a tendency to think that poor choices lead to ruin because it helps them feel better about their own long-term security and the sacrifice/hard work it sometimes takes to make good choices, defer gratification. I think that's just human nature.

[Frances]

Some of the reluctance to move toward universal healthcare stems from differing views of the role of government and how the government is set up. Many of us feel that our system of government was designed as a limited one with specific powers and responsibilities. Those powers and responsibilities have been stretched and tweaked for a long time without much acknowledgement that we aren't really using the government as designed. If the government had a different role from the beginning, many of us would not be (as) upset. The fact that our government on paper and our government in real life don't match up is a sticking point on many issues, not just healthcare. Some people feel that if we returned to the government that we have on paper, it would give the private sector, religious charities, etc. the room to meet needs in other ways. Many people feel that things are too far gone to do so, and that to meet needs, the government must step in. Many people (including some on both sides) have reservations about HOW the government will do this. I grew up in a very rural area in a swing state and now live in one of the fastest growing areas in the country (more reliably conservative). The idea that the government can craft a solution that meets the needs of people in both areas is ridiculous in my mind, not to mention adding in other areas with other demographics, economic situations, etc. I also believe that if Americans want their government to do these things, they should have the integrity to state up front that they want to live in a ___________ type of country with a government that reflects that. Trying to stretch what we have so that what's on paper is just putting a bandaid on all kinds of real problems and kicking the can down the road. Going back to what's on paper is also fraught with potholes and would open it's own can of worms, not matter how ideal some people see it (I tend to think this would be best in the long run, but claim no special wisdom about how to get there without creating real problems for many people, including myself). People don't seem to realize or acknowledge that  the nature of how our government should work or how to maintain what was set up has been debated fervently since the founding of the nation (though to be sure, the scope of how those views would play out was probably more narrow since so much has changed in over 200 years). Our founders were not in one accord about nearly as much as we'd like to think.

 

I am trying to state this an neutrally as possible, but for many of the Christians that I know this is a big part of the equation (limited government).

 

If we were to completely redesign government in America, as a Christian, I would have a really hard time working through all of the possibilities myself. I don't think the Bible mandates a specific type of government, and I believe that there are potentially many ways that Christians could parse out how they believe the government should be set up. However, the size of country, the diversity of its citizens, etc. complicates this even more in my mind than if it were a small and relatively homogenous country. I do believe that the founders purposely tried to make a government that was limited in order to allow people the most people the most freedom possible to pursue their own goals in life; I think they also envisioned that a streamlined government would be more flexible over time (but always hard to maintain). I do believe that at least some of that design was rooted in a Christian ethic, but I don't believe it's mandated by the Bible as the only way to do government. I suspect that many Christians I know would part company with me on the second part of that sentence. :-)

 

I think it's particularly American (but not necessarily wrong) to view redistribution of wealth (even when it's distributed as healthcare) with suspicion. I am quite certain my grandmother has never lived above the poverty line in her life, so I am not immune to the idea that we need a safety net. She has certainly benefitted from it. OTOH, my husband is in a line of work where he sees that safety net abused and fleeced many times per day.

Thanks for your very thorough and thoughtful explanation. From a few brief conservations I've had with co-workers who oppose any type of universal healthcare, I knew that limited government was at least part of the reason for some, but hadn't really heard a thorough explanation. I guess at this point I don't have enough imagination to envision a system where the private sector and religious charities, etc. could possibly meet the needs of such a large and diverse population, but I haven't really spent much time contemplating it. Are there countries or parts of countries where this is done successfully?

[liber]

 

 

My dh was a Canadian nurse who gladly became an American nurse because of the much better standard of care in this country.  (His opinion from being a nurse in multiple hospitals, clinics and settings in multiple cities in both countries).  

 

My aunt is a nurse in Texas and this is the reason why she won't move back to Canada to work.  She much prefers American style of healthcare over Canadian.

 

[Jane in NC]

Kbutton said:
 

I am trying to state this an neutrally as possible, but for many of the Christians that I know this is a big part of the equation (limited government).

 

 

What intrigues me about your statement is this:  there are Christians in many countries with large social safety nets.  In many other places, Christianity is not equated with limited government.  I am wondering if this is really an American thing--and maybe this is what Frances is getting at. 

 

Of course churches are not supposed by be involved in politics but it seems that representatives of many of the mainstream ones have demonstrated in recent times against the cuts to social programs.  Is it just their leaders who feel this way and not the congregations?

 

 

[Frances]

My aunt is a nurse in Texas and this is the reason why she won't move back to Canada to work.  She much prefers American style of healthcare over Canadian.

 

They interviewed some healthcare providers in the film who used to work in America, but moved to Canada to work there because they were so disillusioned with the US system. So I don't doubt there are providers who prefer one system to the other. From polls I've read, most Canadians are very proud of their universal healthcare systems and consider them very important. 

[WishboneDawn]

Just an aside, the man who we Canadians credit for starting health care was Tommy Douglas, a Baptist minister.

[Frances]

Just an aside, the man who we Canadians credit for starting health care was Tommy Douglas, a Baptist minister.

And his grandson, Kiefer Sutherland, narrated the film I saw. 

[WishboneDawn]

And his grandson Kiefer Sutherland narrated the film I saw.

It's sort of funny because it's often a toss up as to exactly what he's most famous for here: that he's an actor, he's Donald Sutherland's son, or that he's Tommy Douglas' grandson. Poor guy. :-)

[kbutton]

Kbutton said:

 

What intrigues me about your statement is this:  there are Christians in many countries with large social safety nets.  In many other places, Christianity is not equated with limited government.  I am wondering if this is really an American thing--and maybe this is what Frances is getting at. 

 

Of course churches are not supposed by be involved in politics but it seems that representatives of many of the mainstream ones have demonstrated in recent times against the cuts to social programs.  Is it just their leaders who feel this way and not the congregations?

 

Sorry, this got way too long.

There are liberal Christians and conservative Christians. Is it somehow more righteous to equate Christianity with big government than limited government? Not to be snarky, but many people who say they don't believe Christianity and government should have anything to do with each other then use religious ideas to argue with conservatives about how limited government isn't Christ-like. My FB feed is proof of that. There are liberal non-Christians and conservative non-Christians. It's also shocking how liberal and conservative politics is divided by geography (rural vs. urban, flyover country vs. coastal areas)--I personally think that has a lot to do with how different both the needs and cultures are in those areas. The divide is not just present among Christians, but I was trying to show why an American Christian might object to universal healthcare and why someone from another country who is also a Christian might be mystified about that. 

 

Universal healthcare is not the only issue that divides people this way, and a lot of people get really upset when politically liberal folk try to make Christians who believe in limited government out to be unfeeling or unlike Jesus (and some people don't realize they make us feel like we are being portrayed this way). Politically conservative people don't believe that forcing people to continue to accept changes to government that they view as illegal has anything to do with being like Jesus or not. Some of us are also Christians. They think our government should stop "living and breathing" (a phrase used about our constitution by liberals) and either 1. change to a new form if people want a new type of government (most conservatives do not want this) or 2. work within the limits set up by our founders (conservatives generally want this, but frankly, they won't agree about how to do it either if this were to come about, lol!). This is how many of us see liberals (I know some would be mystified that we see them this way because they don't see our view either): liberals who want big government frequently talk about how anachronistic our government is, and instead of advocating that we actually change it, they push forward agendas contrary to what's on paper and then say, "well the paper (constitution) is a living, breathing document." If a person holds this view of the constitution, they see no need to change the way they are changing the government (makes sense, right?). People who believe in limited government feel strongly that they should work within the confines of the founding documents. Obviously, many politicians are much more pragmatic and act more from the center to keep their jobs and to get something done. Those centrist folks do well in certain areas of the country that are not as polarized. In other areas, those folks (conservative or liberal--either party can be seen as portraying the base) get voted out at each election cycle, lol! It's a big, woeful betrayal to both conservatives and liberals.

 

I think there are some people who genuinely conflate Christianity and government. I think most Christians do not, but if we're all voting for the same type of government functioning, that won't be obvious to outsiders. Conservatives view limited government as the best protector of nearly all liberties, including religious freedom. That is a whole other ball of wax, but it's probably the ball of wax that is responsible for the "conservative Christians don't love their fellow man" comments. (For all their disagreements about what a limited government is or does, the founders do seem to debate what type of government would preserve liberties the best a great deal of the time.) I personally believe that a large scale change in government would trounce many liberties we enjoy here--we Americans do nothing unless we do it to an extreme (again, we are a large nation with pockets of people all over it with many different needs, resources, and lifestyles). Throwing off the constraints of yesterday is likely to be done with too much abandon, frankly. We can't ever throw out the bath water without throwing out a baby or two.

 

I think some liberal Christians might be shocked at how much I actually agree with them about the needs that exist and many of the sticking points, but because I disagree with them about the nature of our government as it is designed and written into our founding documents, we would both find it difficult to agree on a sane starting point for a conversation. And quite frankly, I think the media has a field day polarizing people on this issue. Our politicians are not much better. If you get one that is clear and up front about what they believe the role of government to be, they are painted as too naïve (particularly conservatives) or too polarizing (either persuasion) to get business done in Washington rather than Washington being painted as too corrupt for people of integrity to navigate. ;-) (Please notice the wink, I am being overly simplistic.)

[kbutton]

I am strongly wanting to take this discussion to my mom's cousin to see what he thinks. He's American. He's married to a Canadian (French Canadian/Mohawk to boot), and he's a Baptist pastor. He's started at least two multi-ethnic churches in big cities and has also lived in the north. I suspect he's got some interesting perspectives!

 

***Edit: the question, not the discussion! No betraying our board conversations!

[Incognito]

I just want to clear up a few misconceptions about my question, I guess I'm not being very clear. I'm not saying universal healthcare is the only way to go, in fact, I asked for other options to the US system and universal healthcare. I was just highlighting universal healthcare because of the film I saw and because from all of the research I've read, it results in lower costs and better health outcomes than in the US. Also, the ACA is not a type of universal healthcare, so I'm not comparing our new system to some type of universal healthcare.

 

And I realize that there are many types of ways that both Christians and non-Christians have worked in the US to provide healthcare for those in need. But even with that, people are still going bankrupt due to health expenses and not getting their basic healthcare needs met. And that doesn't seem to happen in Canada, at least according to the film I saw.

 

Thanks for the Canadians weighing in to explain their system. The film focused primarily on Saskatchewan, as that was the first province to adopt a new system. And it did explain that each province has its own program, although there are some inter-provinincial agreements to deal with very specialized care.

 

People in Canada do go bankrupt due to illness, but not the health expenses themselves.  There isn't a complete safety net, and if you can't work for months and don't have the money for your mortgage, then you lose your house.  Or if your child has some terrible disease and one spouse can't work to care for the child during the illness, etc.

 

Having been on both sides of the border, I would agree that there is a difference between level of care and country - maybe level isn't the right word.  The Canadian medical system I am familiar with is much more likely to treat an illness or problem like my grandma would - send you to bed for a while and maybe give you something if you don't get better in a day or two.  In the US there are high-cost tests that are run and disease is investigated and defined more.  

 

Also, since it is a government system in Canada, there don't seem to be rewards for productivity, so things move SLOWLY.

 

As an aside, all the provinces get their healthcare $$ from the federal government and choose themselves how to set up and run their own systems.  And then there is the whole additional first nations $$ and systems too...

[Jane in NC]

 

Universal healthcare is not the only issue that divides people this way, and a lot of people get really upset when politically liberal folk try to make Christians who believe in limited government out to be unfeeling or unlike Jesus (and some people don't realize they make us feel like we are being portrayed this way). Politically conservative people don't believe that forcing people to continue to accept changes to government that they view as illegal has anything to do with being like Jesus or not. Some of us are also Christians. They think our government should stop "living and breathing" (a phrase used about our constitution by liberals) and either 1. change to a new form if people want a new type of government (most conservatives do not want this) or 2. work within the limits set up by our founders (conservatives generally want this, but frankly, they won't agree about how to do it either if this were to come about, lol!). This is how many of us see liberals (I know some would be mystified that we see them this way because they don't see our view either): liberals who want big government frequently talk about how anachronistic our government is, and instead of advocating that we actually change it, they push forward agendas contrary to what's on paper and then say, "well the paper (constitution) is a living, breathing document." If a person holds this view of the constitution, they see no need to change the way they are changing the government (makes sense, right?). People who believe in limited government feel strongly that they should work within the confines of the founding documents. Obviously, many politicians are much more pragmatic and act more from the center to keep their jobs and to get something done. Those centrist folks do well in certain areas of the country that are not as polarized. In other areas, those folks (conservative or liberal--either party can be seen as portraying the base) get voted out at each election cycle, lol! It's a big, woeful betrayal to both conservatives and liberals.

 

Snipping your post for brevity.

 

Thank you for offering your perceptions of the American political scene. I agree that the situation is complicated in this vast nation of ours where geography and demographics vary.

 

I am not sure though that I can understand a Christian stance on limited government.  The religious education of my youth incorporated social justice.  I'm sure that you too have seen how different churches involve themselves in their communities.  I would never be comfortable at one that wasn't involved--so maybe I make the leap that these church members wish to increase funding for social programs.  Perhaps that is not their take at all, perhaps that is why these churches are running medical clinics, food banks, after school programs, namely that they believe government should not be doing so.  I had assumed that they were picking up the slack of a government that was not assisting as it should.

 

Input from your mom's cousin would be interesting.

 

Best regards,

Jane

[kbutton]

Thanks for your very thorough and thoughtful explanation. From a few brief conservations I've had with co-workers who oppose any type of universal healthcare, I knew that limited government was at least part of the reason for some, but hadn't really heard a thorough explanation. I guess at this point I don't have enough imagination to envision a system where the private sector and religious charities, etc. could possibly meet the needs of such a large and diverse population, but I haven't really spent much time contemplating it. Are there countries or parts of countries where this is done successfully?

 

I think parts are done successfully. The whole package? Probably not. Could it be? I'm not sure that the regulations in place would allow enough creativity to find out. The Amish community does this really, really well, but they've worked hard to keep government out of their lives. They have a totally different view of community than most Americans do too.

 

I think many rural communities in my home state get by with minimal safety nets (notice no absence of safety nets), and I think when that community is full of middle class families that realize how easily they could be the ones needing the safety net, it galls them to have to fork over their money to help other communities where a high percentage of people are using the safety net. It's kind of a "put your own oxygen mask on first" type of thing--they are often one job (or disaster) away from being the person needing the safety net, and they are often putting money aside just in case. If they are being taxed harder, they can't put money aside for their own future needs as easily, and they see being self-sustaining as being necessary to the survival of the safety net (the safety is sustained by people who have their own needs met). And if they are going to be taxed to help others, they want the need it's meeting to be local as well. Most people I know in such a community are not going to mind an elderly neighbor getting some aid to winterize his house so that he can pay for his heat or food stamps, etc. Those same folks are going to be ticked to hear stories about how a whole bunch of people in X city 200 miles away were busted for fraudulently obtaining social security benefits when they were the ones taxed to pay for it. They are less and less likely to want to fork over their money when that happens--first, the help is no longer in their community where they can see the benefit. Secondly, if it's not local, they can't spot the corruption and report it, nor can they prioritize the needs/customize how the needs are met. additionally, if the needs in their community are met, they don't see the need to pay beyond what will benefit their community. They really don't understand how some communities can be totally overwhelmed with people on assistance--it doesn't compute to a person in a rural area who can grow a garden or in some cases, even live without a car that these people can't do something to make their life better in some way. That person figures the community that's sinking has made their own mess, that mess didn't appear overnight in most cases, and "(thank you very much), if we are taxed to fix it, we'll all be in the same incapacitated boat in a couple of years." That's my community growing up in a nutshell. This is not to say that rural communities can't be excruciatingly poor (and you sure can't live without a car if you don't live in a community that's walkable), but where I am from, rural communities have no problem with a LOCAL safety net while having big issues with something further removed. In addition, if the safety net does not cover a particular need, they turn out in droves for fundraisers. Most of their kids are not fundraising $400 per season to play on a select baseball team, so outside of the ski club or band uniforms, many fundraisers are to help with healthcare needs, setting up a family with support when the breadwinner is killed by a drunk driver, raising money for the hospital auxiliary, etc. Motorcycle rides and spaghetti dinners are quite popular ways to accomplish this.

[HS Mom in NC]

1.  The command was given to The Church, not The State.  Some of us have VERY negative attitudes toward combining Church and State in things. Some of us like nice clean lines between the two because history teaches us that you don't want Church and State intermingled.  Giving The State power over important things: education, healthcare, religion, etc. is a vile thing to many of us. We have a phrase here, "You can't fight city hall."  You really don't want to deal with that truth in the context of changing medical staff and treatments for a loved one.  Government is appallingly inefficient and wasteful of funds, so dumping all that money into that kind of system means, ultimately giving less of it to those in need and more to bureaucrats. Compare the efficiency of organizations that provide charitable funds like Keva (sp?) They have great return on their investment which means people who need the money are getting the money, unlike government organizations. Government is inherently inflexible too. 

 

2.  The US healthcare system is terribly broken and spiraling out of control.  Funding a terribly broken system with taxpayer funds perpetuates it and creates no incentive or motivation to fix it, which means wasting far more money that won't be actually helping people. Example: I have a friend whose 5 children are under the age of 8.  She had all normal hospital deliveries with no complications of any kind. Same hospital, same OB.  The last child's delivery cost double what the first child cost. That's ridiculous.  It's completely unsustainable but when government keeps dumping taxpayer dollars into it, it will keep wasting more and more money proportionately. America is financially bankrupt already.  We owe more than we can pay and someday, regardless of what delusional people want to tell us, somehow it will hit us like a brick wall.  Dumping taxpayer dollars into that growing mess, expanding government with a shrinking workforce and birth rate, and other factors are going to mean seriously hard times that the government can't bail us out of. Stop feeding the monster. 

 

3. Don't believe the nonsense you hear that people opposed to government healthcare are opposed to funding charities that help those in need or are against drastic changes to the US healthcare system.  Our moronic 2 party system is a very bad representation of what people really want: solutions.  The 2 parties just want to maintain power most of the time.  Things like lawsuit/malpractice reform: updating standards of practice to match research to eliminate unnecessary procedures; covering alternative, lower cost options like midwifery and chiropractics; getting rid of employer paid health insurance and replacing that with an increase in wages and salaries so health insurance companies are chosen by the patients and it becomes portable (to avoid "pre-existing conditions) and the like are what we want. Unfortunately, most politicians couldn't articulate a useful thought or cohesive policy to save their lives-I don't just mean the ones I disagree with. It's because they focus on 30 second sound bites rather than thinking deeply at all the contributing factors and addressing them specifically.

 

4. There are charity healthcare organizations out there, but dumping taxpayer funds into ALL healthcare is giving it to everyone-not just people who need it.  It's like public school, we now have a system that costs, on average $10,000 per year, per child (3 times higher than 40 years ago adjusted for inflation) and at the same time, no overall improvement in test scores have been seen.  IT's wasted money that could be spent on the truly poor and destitute. And why is everyone, including rich people and the middle class, getting such expensive services when the people who really need it are poor?

 

 So many more people could homeschool or send their child to a private school in my area (about $5,000 per year) but don't even bother to think about it or alter their lifestyles to do it out of their own pocket because, in my neighborhood, for a mere $2,000 per year in taxes you can send as many of your kids as you want at the staggering rate of $10,000 per year, per child.  What was supposed to go to people truly in need, is now an entitlement at skyrocketing costs and mediocre quality. All this in a nation in debt up to its eyeballs. I honestly think is the future of government healthcare.

 

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/state-education-trends

 

5.  The money is going to run out.  We can't keep printing it and borrowing it without paying it back.  This will cause serious economic ruin if we don't start looking for real solutions that get as many people up and running on their own and keeping as few people as possible dependent on government. It's like cancer-the sooner you treat it, the better off you will be in the long run.  Blindly reassuring yourself that your intentions are good (and I believe people who support government healthcare have good intentions) isn't going to stop or fix all these economic realities.

 

I do believe in financially helping people in need-included in that is medical treatment.  I have personally done that. I can do that more effectively without giving it to the government so it can first pay its staff, building maintenance, etc. and then giving what's left to someone in need. 

[Frances]

 

 

I think many rural communities in my home state get by with minimal safety nets (notice no absence of safety nets), and I think when that community is full of middle class families that realize how easily they could be the ones needing the safety net, it galls them to have to fork over their money to help other communities where a high percentage of people are using the safety net. It's kind of a "put your own oxygen mask on first" type of thing--they are often one job (or disaster) away from being the person needing the safety net, and they are often putting money aside just in case. If they are being taxed harder, they can't put money aside for their own future needs as easily, and they see being self-sustaining as being necessary to the survival of the safety net (the safety is sustained by people who have their own needs met). And if they are going to be taxed to help others, they want the need it's meeting to be local as well. Most people I know in such a community are not going to mind an elderly neighbor getting some aid to winterize his house so that he can pay for his heat or food stamps, etc. Those same folks are going to be ticked to hear stories about how a whole bunch of people in X city 200 miles away were busted for fraudulently obtaining social security benefits when they were the ones taxed to pay for it. They are less and less likely to want to fork over their money when that happens--first, the help is no longer in their community where they can see the benefit. Secondly, if it's not local, they can't spot the corruption and report it, nor can they prioritize the needs/customize how the needs are met. additionally, if the needs in their community are met, they don't see the need to pay beyond what will benefit their community. They really don't understand how some communities can be totally overwhelmed with people on assistance--it doesn't compute to a person in a rural area who can grow a garden or in some cases, even live without a car that these people can't do something to make their life better in some way. That person figures the community that's sinking has made their own mess, that mess didn't appear overnight in most cases, and "(thank you very much), if we are taxed to fix it, we'll all be in the same incapacitated boat in a couple of years." That's my community growing up in a nutshell. This is not to say that rural communities can't be excruciatingly poor (and you sure can't live without a car if you don't live in a community that's walkable), but where I am from, rural communities have no problem with a LOCAL safety net while having big issues with something further removed. In addition, if the safety net does not cover a particular need, they turn out in droves for fundraisers. Most of their kids are not fundraising $400 per season to play on a select baseball team, so outside of the ski club or band uniforms, many fundraisers are to help with healthcare needs, setting up a family with support when the breadwinner is killed by a drunk driver, raising money for the hospital auxiliary, etc. Motorcycle rides and spaghetti dinners are quite popular ways to accomplish this.

 

This sounds fairly similar to the rural midwest area I grew up in and where my Mom still lives. After my dad passed away last year and people would ask me how my mom was doing, I would reply that I couldn't imagine a better place for her to be as a widow. She has amazing support and help in her small town. She has definitely helped with and attended the type of fundraisers you mention, and I know many people have similar views on a local safety net. While my parents set a daily example of helping friends, family, and neighbors in need, they also encouraged us to educate ourselves about and try to be involved with helping those throughout the country and the world. And despite all of the wonderful support and help my mom has from her community, I can't imagine how my mom would survive without Medicare, given her long-term significant health issues. 

[Frances]

1.  The command was given to The Church, not The State.  Some of us have VERY negative attitudes toward combining Church and State in things. Some of us like nice clean lines between the two because history teaches us that you don't want Church and State intermingled.  Giving The State power over important things: education, healthcare, religion, etc. is a vile thing to many of us. We have a phrase here, "You can't fight city hall."  You really don't want to deal with that truth in the context of changing medical staff and treatments for a loved one.  Government is appallingly inefficient and wasteful of funds, so dumping all that money into that kind of system means, ultimately giving less of it to those in need and more to bureaucrats. Compare the efficiency of organizations that provide charitable funds like Keva (sp?) They have great return on their investment which means people who need the money are getting the money, unlike government organizations. Government is inherently inflexible too. 

 

2.  The US healthcare system is terribly broken and spiraling out of control.  Funding a terribly broken system with taxpayer funds perpetuates it and creates no incentive or motivation to fix it, which means wasting far more money that won't be actually helping people. Example: I have a friend whose 5 children are under the age of 8.  She had all normal hospital deliveries with no complications of any kind. Same hospital, same OB.  The last child's delivery cost double what the first child cost. That's ridiculous.  It's completely unsustainable but when government keeps dumping taxpayer dollars into it, it will keep wasting more and more money proportionately. America is financially bankrupt already.  We owe more than we can pay and someday, regardless of what delusional people want to tell us, somehow it will hit us like a brick wall.  Dumping taxpayer dollars into that growing mess, expanding government with a shrinking workforce and birth rate, and other factors are going to mean seriously hard times that the government can't bail us out of. Stop feeding the monster. 

 

3. Don't believe the nonsense you hear that people opposed to government healthcare are opposed to funding charities that help those in need or are against drastic changes to the US healthcare system.  Our moronic 2 party system is a very bad representation of what people really want: solutions.  The 2 parties just want to maintain power most of the time.  Things like lawsuit/malpractice reform: updating standards of practice to match research to eliminate unnecessary procedures; covering alternative, lower cost options like midwifery and chiropractics; getting rid of employer paid health insurance and replacing that with an increase in wages and salaries so health insurance companies are chosen by the patients and it becomes portable (to avoid "pre-existing conditions) and the like are what we want. Unfortunately, most politicians couldn't articulate a useful thought or cohesive policy to save their lives-I don't just mean the ones I disagree with. It's because they focus on 30 second sound bites rather than thinking deeply at all the contributing factors and addressing them specifically.

 

4. There are charity healthcare organizations out there, but dumping taxpayer funds into ALL healthcare is giving it to everyone-not just people who need it.  It's like public school, we now have a system that costs, on average $10,000 per year, per child (3 times higher than 40 years ago adjusted for inflation) and at the same time, no overall improvement in test scores have been seen.  IT's wasted money that could be spent on the truly poor and destitute. And why is everyone, including rich people and the middle class, getting such expensive services when the people who really need it are poor?

 

 So many more people could homeschool or send their child to a private school in my area (about $5,000 per year) but don't even bother to think about it or alter their lifestyles to do it out of their own pocket because, in my neighborhood, for a mere $2,000 per year in taxes you can send as many of your kids as you want at the staggering rate of $10,000 per year, per child.  What was supposed to go to people truly in need, is now an entitlement at skyrocketing costs and mediocre quality. All this in a nation in debt up to its eyeballs. I honestly think is the future of government healthcare.

 

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/state-education-trends

 

5.  The money is going to run out.  We can't keep printing it and borrowing it without paying it back.  This will cause serious economic ruin if we don't start looking for real solutions that get as many people up and running on their own and keeping as few people as possible dependent on government. It's like cancer-the sooner you treat it, the better off you will be in the long run.  Blindly reassuring yourself that your intentions are good (and I believe people who support government healthcare have good intentions) isn't going to stop or fix all these economic realities.

 

I do believe in financially helping people in need-included in that is medical treatment.  I have personally done that. I can do that more effectively without giving it to the government so it can first pay its staff, building maintenance, etc. and then giving what's left to someone in need. 

 

You've raised many interesting points. For #1, I guess I would substitute insurance companies for government in your explanation to explain many of the problems I see with our current system. Insurance companies dictate who you can see and what will be covered. Insurance companies take money that could be used to actually deliver healthcare. Insurance companies create a layer of unnecessary, expensive bureaucracy. For example, my mom has a good friend who has been fighting cancer for several years. Recently, the local hospital he went to for treatments merged with a healthcare system three hours away. Now he has to frequently travel long distances in very bad weather conditions for his treatments and when he is hospitalized, it is very difficult for his family to be there for him and maintain things at home. What he really wants to do is go to the other, excellent hospital in a nearby town, but his insurance won't cover his treatments there. When my dad was had cancer and was covered by Medicare, he was free to choose exactly the hospital he wanted.

 

For #2, I absolutely agree with you that the US system is terribly broken and spiraling out of control. I don't think advocates of universal healthcare in the US think we should just take the current system as is and have the government pay for everyone. In order to get the decreased costs and increased health outcomes that other countries have, many other reforms would be needed. 

 

To #3, I was interested to hear your list of proposed reforms. I guess one thing I still struggle to understand is that if so many other countries have shown that some form of universal healthcare (as far as I know, every other industrialized nation in the world) both lowers costs and increases health outcomes, why would we experiment with other piece-meal reforms that may or may not work? Obviously we would have our own unique American brand of universal healthcare, but fundamentally, that's the system that has been shown to work. To me, it seems similar to our broken public education system. We're always reforming education and wasting lots of time and money on new methods, new tests, new training, etc. and the results always seem to be the same.

 

As to #4 and #5, Since countries with universal healthcare spend significantly less per capital on healthcare than the US does, it appears that providing basic healthcare for all citizens, while instituting other necessary reforms to the system, decreases the overall dollars needed to help everyone get healthcare. There are lots of economic reasons for this, but I won't go into all of the details here. It appears to be a much more efficient and effective use of limited healthcare dollars.

[Frances]

Sorry, this got way too long.

There are liberal Christians and conservative Christians. Is it somehow more righteous to equate Christianity with big government than limited government? Not to be snarky, but many people who say they don't believe Christianity and government should have anything to do with each other then use religious ideas to argue with conservatives about how limited government isn't Christ-like. My FB feed is proof of that. There are liberal non-Christians and conservative non-Christians. It's also shocking how liberal and conservative politics is divided by geography (rural vs. urban, flyover country vs. coastal areas)--I personally think that has a lot to do with how different both the needs and cultures are in those areas. The divide is not just present among Christians, but I was trying to show why an American Christian might object to universal healthcare and why someone from another country who is also a Christian might be mystified about that. 

 

Universal healthcare is not the only issue that divides people this way, and a lot of people get really upset when politically liberal folk try to make Christians who believe in limited government out to be unfeeling or unlike Jesus (and some people don't realize they make us feel like we are being portrayed this way). Politically conservative people don't believe that forcing people to continue to accept changes to government that they view as illegal has anything to do with being like Jesus or not. Some of us are also Christians. They think our government should stop "living and breathing" (a phrase used about our constitution by liberals) and either 1. change to a new form if people want a new type of government (most conservatives do not want this) or 2. work within the limits set up by our founders (conservatives generally want this, but frankly, they won't agree about how to do it either if this were to come about, lol!). This is how many of us see liberals (I know some would be mystified that we see them this way because they don't see our view either): liberals who want big government frequently talk about how anachronistic our government is, and instead of advocating that we actually change it, they push forward agendas contrary to what's on paper and then say, "well the paper (constitution) is a living, breathing document." If a person holds this view of the constitution, they see no need to change the way they are changing the government (makes sense, right?). People who believe in limited government feel strongly that they should work within the confines of the founding documents. Obviously, many politicians are much more pragmatic and act more from the center to keep their jobs and to get something done. Those centrist folks do well in certain areas of the country that are not as polarized. In other areas, those folks (conservative or liberal--either party can be seen as portraying the base) get voted out at each election cycle, lol! It's a big, woeful betrayal to both conservatives and liberals.

 

I think there are some people who genuinely conflate Christianity and government. I think most Christians do not, but if we're all voting for the same type of government functioning, that won't be obvious to outsiders. Conservatives view limited government as the best protector of nearly all liberties, including religious freedom. That is a whole other ball of wax, but it's probably the ball of wax that is responsible for the "conservative Christians don't love their fellow man" comments. (For all their disagreements about what a limited government is or does, the founders do seem to debate what type of government would preserve liberties the best a great deal of the time.) I personally believe that a large scale change in government would trounce many liberties we enjoy here--we Americans do nothing unless we do it to an extreme (again, we are a large nation with pockets of people all over it with many different needs, resources, and lifestyles). Throwing off the constraints of yesterday is likely to be done with too much abandon, frankly. We can't ever throw out the bath water without throwing out a baby or two.

 

I think some liberal Christians might be shocked at how much I actually agree with them about the needs that exist and many of the sticking points, but because I disagree with them about the nature of our government as it is designed and written into our founding documents, we would both find it difficult to agree on a sane starting point for a conversation. And quite frankly, I think the media has a field day polarizing people on this issue. Our politicians are not much better. If you get one that is clear and up front about what they believe the role of government to be, they are painted as too naïve (particularly conservatives) or too polarizing (either persuasion) to get business done in Washington rather than Washington being painted as too corrupt for people of integrity to navigate. ;-) (Please notice the wink, I am being overly simplistic.)

 

Your posts have given me so much to think about today - thank you! I never before heard the perspective that instituting a form of universal healthcare would be viewed as illegal by some. I'll have to look into that perspective some more.

 

I was also taken by this sentence, "Conservatives view limited government as the best protector of nearly all liberties, including religious freedom." In relation to Canada and the larger government involvement in healthcare there, what liberties do conservatives feel have been lost?

[source of joy]

Most people whom I know who oppose universal healthcare do so because they believe that individuals should care for themselves and their immediate families.  In fact, the guy sitting next to me on a plane the other day noted that he does not want to support any social welfare programs--period.  I suspect that this is tied to the importance that Americans feel for individual rights over the collective.

 

I'm Canadian and I'm soooo very grateful for our universal healthcare.  I couldn't imagine if my siblings or myself had to take care of our parent's and brother's healthcare needs, my parents and brother are very poor and they wouldn't be able to take care of themselves...we help our parents out regularly as is...we wouldn't be able to afford healthcare on top of what we're doing already.  

 

[kbutton]

Your posts have given me so much to think about today - thank you! I never before heard the perspective that instituting a form of universal healthcare would be viewed as illegal by some. I'll have to look into that perspective some more.

 

I was also taken by this sentence, "Conservatives view limited government as the best protector of nearly all liberties, including religious freedom." In relation to Canada and the larger government involvement in healthcare there, what liberties do conservatives feel have been lost?

 

I've enjoyed the discussion. My first job out of college was in a close-knit company with folks who'd worked together long enough to exhaust all of the non-political, non-religious conversations long before I came. It was a hoot.

 

I do not know enough about the "how" of Canada's healthcare system or Canadian culture to really talk about liberties there, much less what might have been lost in the process of adopting nationalized healthcare in Canada. The setup of the Canadian government might allow for much more government involvement through what are normal channels (how it's defined in founding documents), or it may have altered founding documents to make newer political philosophies an agreed upon way of doing government rather than viewing their constitution (?) as a "living breathing document" to be massaged at will. I still think this is the crux of things--if a government will not honor it's constitution, what is to keep it from doing whatever it wants? Does it matter if the government violates any actual freedoms if it won't do what it's set up to do? What is to keep it from going rogue except time and fear of people revolting (our founders actually discussed this too!)? (I promise, I used to know more about Canadian government and its structure, but I don't remember now.)

 

The rest of this is more of an aside, but it's all stuck together in my mind. Feel free to read or not read, lol! My last paragraph is relevant, but I can't copy and paste in this browser. My ability to be concise is waning, so my apologies.

 

I think conservative Americans figure that the fewer rules that exist and the fewer things they subsidize, the fewer limitations there will be to all liberties (again, not just healthcare). I am not unaware that this could be seen as sticking one's head in the sand, but it's meant as a safeguard, not a way to avoid reality. Many Americans want to take care of themselves and feel that taking care of others involuntarily makes them less able to take care of themselves (not as prideful stubbornness to never need help, but as a matter of integrity and personal responsibility).

 

If all was ideal, and we actually came up with a new form of government supported by the vast majority of Americans, there will still be some people who would want a limited government no matter what. Others (even conservatives and moderates) would roll with bigger government but still expect the new government to do what it says on paper or else change the paperwork (amend the constitution) if they want to change the original, ratified assumptions.

 

As for specific liberties, the birth control topic has been discussed frequently and with zeal on this board, and it always gets ugly. If we don't mandate that the government covers healthcare, we won't have to argue about whether X should be covered by Y (special group that objects) unless it's with an insurance company. No one is really happy with how insurance companies choose to do business either, but that is another aside. There are many people who would argue that sex reassignment for transgendered folks is necessary healthcare. Even if that were something that everyone agreed upon, the cost of that is staggering (I believe it was mentioned on another thread as being like buying a house). Is that even reasonably practical? Frankly, under the ACA, there is a lot of necessary healthcare that is not going to be covered. It just won't be because it's not affecting people who have the ability to make a stink about it.

 

Some people are worried about covering things they object to, while others are quite worried that they won't be covered because they are a burden to the system (and there are concrete reasons to be worried about that). Maybe Canadians lack an entitlement mentality and don't bilk the government for all it's worth, but that's not the case here. The stories my husband could tell from work would curl your toenails, and they are typical stories, not the exception. Because of this kind of abuse driving up the cost of ordinary care, there is an entire county locally where not a single doctor will accept Medicaid (the care offered to low-income people, not the one for older folks). It's a county where many people are on Medicaid, and the doctors cannot stay afloat while seeing these patients. That's nuts. They are not being mean--they wouldn't be able to keep their doors open. But because the government is specifying what they are willing to pay and pay for, doctors are forced to take it or leave it. No one wins. And yes, there are some free clinics opening in these areas--my husband refers folks there. I have no idea who sponsors these clinics.

 

With the ACA, the government has defined, in flowchart fashion, how reimbursement is going to work, and they basically won't pay for certain, really common, types of chronic care (I am being vague on purpose--my hubby is in healthcare but isn't a doc. I don't want to say too much about where my husband works, and my example is specific to his particular type of practice). Even if everyone was okay with covering birth control of every kind, no questions asked, there are many folks who would question why we should be paying for such a thing (most BC is not very expensive, so it's seen as obtainable out of pocket) when people are being refused routine care for a chronic illness that either has already cost them a great deal of money, or that has hit them in old age when they are often at the end of their means. Even Americans that support some universal healthcare believe that the government should be paying for expenses above a certain dollar amount, not offering "first dollar" coverage. They are concerned that expensive, life-saving treatments will disappear, folks with chronic illness will have less care, while the masses will be blissfully happy to get their ibuprofen paid for (and yes, even before ACA, people on government healthcare could get meds available at the Dollar Store paid for, even if they are not necessary, and even if it's more expensive than just handing them a buck to go to the dollar store!).

 

I personally would love to see some sort of high-deductible plan with health savings accounts in place for most Americans (seems like the Swiss do something like this and have data to back up that it's less expensive), but even then, I think big laws would have to change to do so legally. The HSAs could range from being fully funded for those who are in dire need to not funded at all based on folks being able to afford the deductible. An HSA might force people to use routine care wisely (again, the stories my husband can tell...). If they blow their HSA on expensive visits to the ER to get Tylenol for an ordinary headache, it's their problem. We'd have to modify what the enumerated powers of the federal government are in order to do that, and once we do that, who knows what the government will do with that freedom. It opens the door for them to go farther than intended, and they do that already. No new agreed upon document can make people trust a government that doesn't follow the rules placed on it already. Some liberal politicians have made it clear that they want a whole new world and will not stop until they get one. That doesn't exactly engender trust.

[kbutton]

I think it's a conservative lie that we all gain freedom when we 'only' have to look out for ourselves.

 

The liberty that comes from living in a cohesive society that places value on the health and wellbeing of all its members - rich, poor, young, old - is beyond price.

 

I can definitely see where libertarian ideas can lead to thinking that we don't need to take care of others.

 

I think it's legitimate to fear having the ability to take care of one's self hampered significantly by being forced to take care of those who will NOT care for themselves.

[NancyNellen]

I think it's a conservative lie that we all gain freedom when we 'only' have to look out for ourselves.

 

The liberty that comes from living in a cohesive society that places value on the health and wellbeing of all it's members - rich, poor, young, old - is beyond price.

(This is very unusual for me to wade into a politically charged topic here, but I am just very tired of hearing the same untrue rhetoric over and over...and I am visiting my family on the east coast and they have all gone to bed, while my Mountain Time body is just not sleepy.)

 

Well, I've only ever heard that above quote about conservatives from liberals. It is a convenient political ploy to label your opponent as uncaring, unfeeling, and cold. But it surely doesn't make it at all true.

 

The majority of my friends/relations are politically conservative and I cannot think of a single person (including myself, my husband, and most of my immediate family) who believes that we gain freedom by looking out for ourselves or that we should look out only for ourselves. Not one. But most of us believe that "we the people" should be looking out for those less fortunate. If the government would get back to its original limited size and scope, as laid out in the Constitution, reduce the heavy tax burden of those hard-working and productive members of society, stop enabling those who can work but choose not to to be a drain on the populace, then "we the people" would be more free to help those legitimately in need.

 

As to the OP...I cannot think of a single Christian irl who does not give back to those in need in some way...whether giving financially, serving with their time, organizing drives, serving at soup kitchens/food pantries, helping those coming out of gang life, buying groceries for neighbors, keeping baggies of necessities to hand out to homeless folks, or all of the above. Our church is very active in the community in all of the above ways...and more. And it is in a lower-middle class neighborhood. Certainly the majority if the members are far from wealthy, but they do what can, often stretching themselves financially for the benefit if others.

 

The issue for me is this: the government has gotten in the way of allowing "we the people" to serve as we feel called. In this country, I do not feel that forcing people to purchase anything, including insurance, is Constitutional. Many agree with me. It is not the government's job and they are extremely inefficient at it.

 

It is true charity to be able to give and serve out of the abundance of your life. It feels more like stealing when you are required to give (through taxes or high insurance costs) and then forced to watch your hard-earned money be inefficiently used, ill-spent, and/or used to fund things which are in opposition to your conscience.

 

It is utterly untrue that all those opposed to universal healthcare are uncaring and not living in perfect harmony with Biblical mandates.

 

Sincerely,

A politically conservative Christian who is not at all opposed to helping others and actually has a deep love for, and interest in, her fellow Man.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

As to the OP...I cannot think of a single Christian irl who does not give back to those in need in some way...whether giving financially, serving with their time, organizing drives, serving at soup kitchens/food pantries, helping those coming out of gang life, buying groceries for neighbors, keeping baggies of necessities to hand out to homeless folks, or all of the above. Our church is very active in the community in all of the above ways...and more. And it is in a lower-middle class neighborhood. Certainly the majority if the members are far from wealthy, but they do what can, often stretching themselves financially for the benefit if others.

 

 

I think it is great that you are surrounded by so many folks committed to giving.  While I know many Christians who give their time/money to help others, I know a lot who do not.

[Audrey]

I am Canadian now, but grew up American (and renounced my citizenship many years ago).  I do not think that the US needs more Canadians.  I think that the US needs to work out a universal healthcare system for itself.  I do believe it needs one, but the Canadian system isn't it -- neither is the German, French or UK systems.  Every country who has built a system of UHC has done it differently than the next.  There may be some similarities along the way -- of course, why not take the best that applies and use it? -- but no other country's UHC is going to work for the US. 

 

I think that the OP pointed out something very important, though.  The Canadian mindset is entirely unlike the US mindset.  Americans tend to think that we're just like them.  I know I did when I first came here.  That couldn't be farther from the truth, though.  I am not saying one mindset is better than the other, but I am saying that what is Canadian is Canadian because of the Canadian mindset, and what is/can be American is/will be because of the American mindset.  You can't force it any other way. 

[Incognito]

In Canada the political/religious divide is much much deeper (and the country itself is quite secular).  I was listening to a story on public radio the other day about a politician who it was discovered had supported something pro-life before entering office - the politician stated that those were personal religious views that would not affect how he would act as a representative of his constituents.  And the idea of that makes perfect sense here.  I can't imagine that flying where I was from in the US.  

 

Another abortion issue in Canada - the conservative government gained power partially on the promise that they would not discuss abortion.  There is no federal law about abortion in Canada (it is legal up until birth).  When one conservative brought up a bill to have a discussion about when life begins , he jeopardized his status within the party.  The bill didn't go anywhere.  This is sooo opposite of how US political stumping works.  

 

The Canadian psyche is very different from the US psyche - and it is generally much more socialist, even with a "conservative" government in power.

[Frances]

 

It is utterly untrue that all those opposed to universal healthcare are uncaring and not living in perfect harmony with Biblical mandates.

 

 

 

Again, I want to say that I was not trying to imply this and I apologize if it came across that way. I was trying to reconcile opposition in light of the Christian principles I was taught and the very social justice oriented churches I attended. I've definitely learned a great deal more about the conservative view on limited government through some of the very thoughtful replies to my question. Am I understanding correctly that you would also prefer that Medicare be eliminated and the healthcare needs of the elderly be taken care of in other ways?

[Frances]

I am Canadian now, but grew up American (and renounced my citizenship many years ago).  I do not think that the US needs more Canadians.  I think that the US needs to work out a universal healthcare system for itself.  I do believe it needs one, but the Canadian system isn't it -- neither is the German, French or UK systems.  Every country who has built a system of UHC has done it differently than the next.  There may be some similarities along the way -- of course, why not take the best that applies and use it? -- but no other country's UHC is going to work for the US. 

 

I think that the OP pointed out something very important, though.  The Canadian mindset is entirely unlike the US mindset.  Americans tend to think that we're just like them.  I know I did when I first came here.  That couldn't be farther from the truth, though.  I am not saying one mindset is better than the other, but I am saying that what is Canadian is Canadian because of the Canadian mindset, and what is/can be American is/will be because of the American mindset.  You can't force it any other way. 

 

As I mentioned earlier, I don't think we should just plop the Canadian system into the US, we would need to have our own unique American brand of universal healthcare. I was just talking about some of the common results that seem to come from different universal healthcare systems across the world, such as decreased costs and improved health outcomes, in comparison to the US system. I used the "We need more Canadians" line for my title just because it was a catchy phrase from the movie. In fact, the movie ended with a Canadian being asked if the US should adopt universal healthcare and her reply was that Americans need to decide for themselves, just as Canadians did.

 

I'm definitely guilty of thinking Canadians are very like us. I've only travelled there, never lived there. My brother-in-law is Canadian, but he came to the US for college and stayed. I've definitely learned more about both Canada and conservatives in the US based on responses to my question.

 

Something I read once and wondered if it was true - all of the main political parties in Canada are to the left of the Republican party in the US?

[NASDAQ]

Canada absolutely spends less on healthcare than the US. This is because we decide how much we are going to spend, and ration accordingly. That's why multi-year waits for specialists and surgeries and MRIs are common. This is not for a particular specialist/surgeon;It means waiting two years to get your kid's scoliosis fixed. It is forbidden to seek a government-provided service on the open market, so while Canadians may carry "extended insurance," it will only cover that which MSP would not.

 

Canadians tend to have much lower expectations for their healthcare than Americans do. The main impediment to a Canadian-style healthcare system in the US would be that Americans would not consider it adequate, not that Americans are not lovely, self-sacrificing people. I am sure they are as lovely and as self-sacrificing as Canadians.

[Incognito]

 

 

Something I read once and wondered if it was true - all of the main political parties in Canada are to the left of the Republican party in the US?

 

Yes.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Canada absolutely spends less on healthcare than the US. This is because we decide how much we are going to spend, and ration accordingly. That's why multi-year waits for specialists and surgeries and MRIs are common. This is not for a particular specialist/surgeon;It means waiting two years to get your kid's scoliosis fixed. It is forbidden to seek a government-provided service on the open market, so while Canadians may carry "extended insurance," it will only cover that which MSP would not.

 

Canadians tend to have much lower expectations for their healthcare than Americans do. The main impediment to a Canadian-style healthcare system in the US would be that Americans would not consider it adequate, not that Americans are not lovely, self-sacrificing people. I am sure they are as lovely and as self-sacrificing as Canadians.

You're right.  I don't consider it adequate.  That's why our Canadian relatives come down here for healthcare that needs a faster timetable.  But I agree that it has nothing to do with our moral virtues.  There are pros and cons to each system and the citizens of each country are going to have to decide  how to weight those pros and cons to find something that works for them.  This is the main reason I found the OP (the post, not the person) to be a bit offensive to me - because in that post she tied these decisions to moral virtue and then tried to tie them to Christianity.  

[Frances]

 

 

Canadians tend to have much lower expectations for their healthcare than Americans do. The main impediment to a Canadian-style healthcare system in the US would be that Americans would not consider it adequate, not that Americans are not lovely, self-sacrificing people. I am sure they are as lovely and as self-sacrificing as Canadians.

 

Maybe not all Americans would consider it inadequate  :001_smile: . My husband works in the healthcare system and his approach and advice to family and friends when they ask for his opinion is very much like one of the Canadians described in an earlier post as your Grandma's method. Even though we have excellent health insurance, we definitely take the wait and see if it will get better on its own approach and think a lot before starting down any path of medical intervention. Because from my husband's perspective based on years of experience, one thing leads to another and then another and then another, etc.

 

My husband is daily saddened to see the extreme and painful measures taken to keep people alive for just a few more hours or days. It is heartbreaking for him and he is so thankful that both of our dads had wonderful hospice experiences during their last days.

[MistyMountain]

We drove through Canada and my husband talked to lots and lots of Canadians and all of them except for one guy in a gift shop in the Yukon were very happy with the health care system and perfectly fine to pay more for it so everyone was taken care of. He talked about taxes too and they also didn't complain about them because it prevented major poverty.

 

I think I would fit in better in Canada. I actually seriously contemplated immigrating there. My husband's job happen to be one that was needed. The process is really really long and afterwards I don't think it would be easy as a foreigner to find a job. You can't just pack up your bags and leave your country if you don't like how things are going. ;)

[NASDAQ]

We drove through Canada and my husband talked to lots and lots of Canadians and all of them except for one guy in a gift shop in the Yukon were very happy with the health care system and perfectly fine to pay more for it so everyone was taken care of. He talked about taxes too and they also didn't complain about them because it prevented major poverty.

 

I think I would fit in better in Canada. I actually seriously contemplated immigrating there. My husband's job happen to be one that was needed. The process is really really long and afterwards I don't think it would be easy as a foreigner to find a job. You can't just pack up your bags and leave your country if you don't like how things are going. ;)

 

Canadians generally agree with their medical system in theory (and are certainly going to be positive to an American asking questions), but dissatisfaction with the actual system appears to be on the rise. People can be happy with socialised medicine in general and concerned about our particular socialised medicine.

 

Taxes in Canada are not necessarily higher than what you are paying, depending on your state. Property taxes, for example, are lower on orders of magnitude than in high tax states. But services are not all that you might imagine either. Canada has more transfer payments, but fewer goods-in-kind types of services (no food stamps, no school lunches). Take universities. Tuition is low, but spots are scarce as well, especially outside of Ontario. So it's not a more socialised US. It's different.

 

Immigration to Canada is actually very simple for skilled workers, if indeed that is something you are interested in. It's very straight-forward. We have a very high immigrant population, although it is intentionally skewed in favour of well-off, skilled immigrants. I have never heard of a landed resident having difficulty finding a job because he is a resident and not a citizen.

[Incognito]

I think I would fit in better in Canada. I actually seriously contemplated immigrating there. My husband's job happen to be one that was needed. The process is really really long and afterwards I don't think it would be easy as a foreigner to find a job. You can't just pack up your bags and leave your country if you don't like how things are going. ;)

 

 

 

Immigration to Canada is actually very simple for skilled workers, if indeed that is something you are interested in. It's very straight-forward. We have a very high immigrant population, although it is intentionally skewed in favour of well-off, skilled immigrants. I have never heard of a landed resident having difficulty finding a job because he is a resident and not a citizen.

 

The process may take some time, but it really isn't an issue to be foreign in Canada.  Half the people I run into are first generation Canadian (or their parents were or spouse is).  I'm only slightly exaggerating.  Finding a job in a skilled trade that has openings would not be hampered by your citizenship vs. residency status.

[bolt.]

I'm not quite sure how to put this. I'm hearing a lot of American "of course we like to charitably help the needy" ideas. I want to focus on the subtle difference in Canadian perspective on that. We don't view people with health needs as "needy" to be responded to "charitably" -- my thinking follows an entirely different loop. You might think of it as something like entitlement, I guess. I think of it as a basic service of a civilized society. Like police.

 

I can't wrap my head around societies where some people would have police (and pay for them) and others would have no police service whatsoever. Does the analogy make sense? Do Americans think of policing as "a given"? I never think about how much it costs to have "universal" police coverage, or whether I "get my share" or whether people who "need more" should be entitled to it, in spite of the cost.

 

It's that kind of thinking that characterizes my attitude towards healthcare. I don't think of it in a "charitable" way. I don't say, "Yes, we should all kindly and willingly look after the needy." -- That would be like saying. "Gee, I'm so sad your child was kidnapped because you didn't have any police coverage. What a tragedy. You're raising money to hire a criminal task force? That must be expensive! What can I do to help?" (Instead of saying, "Aren't you entitled to a reasonable level of public safety? Don't you have people who just investigate crimes because they are crimes?")

 

Is my analogy holding? I hope I'm making sense.

[Free]

But most of us believe that "we the people" should be looking out for those less fortunate. If the government would get back to its original limited size and scope, as laid out in the Constitution, reduce the heavy tax burden of those hard-working and productive members of society, stop enabling those who can work but choose not to to be a drain on the populace, then "we the people" would be more free to help those legitimately in need.

 

The issue for me is this: the government has gotten in the way of allowing "we the people" to serve as we feel called.

 

Sincerely,

A politically conservative Christian who is not at all opposed to helping others and actually has a deep love for, and interest in, her fellow Man.

 

I think this is where the current American idea about what the government is differs fundamentally from the rest of the democratic world. We do not see the government as an alien entity "forcing us" to do things. The government is an extension of "we the people". The government represents us.

 

Wasn't it Lincoln who called the American government "of the people, by the people, for the people"? That particular quote has defined my own country's vision of self-governance and it continues to inspire the standards to which we aspire to hold our government.

 

Secondly, I find it problematic to put people in boxes labelled "choosing not to work" and "legitimately in need". I believe that such simplistic labeling of human beings demonstrates the opposite of "deep love for fellow humans".

 

And finally, while there may be people who feel called to serve, there are many who feel called to exploit. The growing environmental issues, corporate greed, crony capitalism and the growing income inequality (not just in America, but all over the world) demonstrates this amply.

[Free]

I'm not quite sure how to put this. I'm hearing a lot of American "of course we like to charitably help the needy" ideas. I want to focus on the subtle difference in Canadian perspective on that. We don't view people with health needs as "needy" to be responded to "charitably" -- my thinking follows an entirely different loop. You might think of it as something like entitlement, I guess. I think of it as a basic service of a civilized society. Like police.

 

I can't wrap my head around societies where some people would have police (and pay for them) and others would have no police service whatsoever. Does the analogy make sense? Do Americans think of policing as "a given"? I never think about how much it costs to have "universal" police coverage, or whether I "get my share" or whether people who "need more" should be entitled to it, in spite of the cost.

 

It's that kind of thinking that characterizes my attitude towards healthcare. I don't think of it in a "charitable" way. I don't say, "Yes, we should all kindly and willingly look after the needy." -- That would be like saying. "Gee, I'm so sad your child was kidnapped because you didn't have any police coverage. What a tragedy. You're raising money to hire a criminal task force? That must be expensive! What can I do to help?" (Instead of saying, "Aren't you entitled to a reasonable level of public safety? Don't you have people who just investigate crimes because they are crimes?")

 

Is my analogy holding? I hope I'm making sense.

 

Yes! Your analogy is perfect and your post overall is great.

 

[Laura Corin]

Secondly, I find it problematic to put people in boxes labelled "choosing not to work" and "legitimately in need". I believe that such simplistic labeling of human beings demonstrates the opposite of "deep love for fellow humans".

 

 

When I was doing some retraining after Husband lost his job, the building that my classes were in also housed a back to work course for people who had been unemployed for some time.  Some of the people I met, and whom I heard described anonymously by the teacher, were what I would describe as 'walking wounded'.  They looked fine and, in most cases, were of normal intelligence.  They had backgrounds of such damage and abuse, however, that the very act of turning up for a training course was a triumph.  

 

Yes, some people go through those levels of abuse and emerge to join wider society - not everyone can though.  Did they have definable mental illnesses that should have been diagnosed?  I have no idea.  However, meeting them and hearing about them changed profoundly my idea of some kind of clear line between 'choosing not to work' and being 'legitimately in need'.

 

L