Has the Church always supported universal healthcare?

[Prodigal_Son1]

I don’t think that Jesus’ reply in Mark 17 was a particular endorsement of taxes, even of Roman taxes. Remember, it was a trick question. Like an interviewer on a Sunday morning talk show, the questioner wished to trap him into a yes or no answer. “Is it lawful to pay the tax to the emperor or not? Are we to pay or not to pay?”

Jesus began his reply with “Why are you trying to trip me up? Bring me a coin and let me see it.” The coin being produced, he asked, “whose head is this, and whose inscription?” “Caesar’s,” was the reply. He then gave his oft-quoted reply, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but give to God what is God’s.”

Asking to see a coin elicited the obvious fact that the Jews were already using Roman coins. They were living under Roman law and in fact paying Roman taxes.

Like any Sunday show guest facing a trick question, he simply refused to answer the question. They wanted a yes or no. He side-stepped it. No inferences about tax policy can be drawn.

He answered it. You quoted it.

 

[JimG]

He answered it. You quoted it.

And what does his answer mean?

He might have said, looking at that coin, "Sure you should pay taxes! Look, you’re already paying them! He might have said, “No, you are Jews, you follow the Jewish law, not the Roman law.”

In fact, he chose to evade the question. That’s the sign of a smart teacher, knowing which questions not to answer.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And what does his answer mean?

He might have said, looking at that coin, "Sure you should pay taxes! Look, you’re already paying them! He might have said, “No, you are Jews, you follow the Jewish law, not the Roman law.”

In fact, he chose to evade the question. That’s the sign of a smart teacher, knowing which questions not to answer.

He said render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar’s. That seems to say, pay the taxes. Taxes are of this world anyways.

Here we are arguing on whether we should be offended that our taxes might help the less fortunate. Where does Christ teach us to collect only for ourselves and let everyone else be responsible for themselves?

 

[JimG]

He said render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar’s. That seems to say, pay the taxes. Taxes are of this world anyways.

Here we are arguing on whether we should be offended that our taxes might help the less fortunate. Where does Christ teach us to collect only for ourselves and let everyone else be responsible for themselves?

True, he didn’t say "Don’t pay. That would have gotten him labeled a tax resister and revolutionary. But he didn’t just say “pay the tax,” either. Because that would have gotten him labeled as a lax Jew who was fine with the Roman occupation.

He did what any good speaker would do when faced with a no-win question. Evade the question by giving an answer which can be taken however the questioner likes.

Not that his answer has anything to do with universal healthcare. I’m just saying that his answer was a non-answer and means nothing in terms of this debate.

He didn’t say, yes you should pay taxes and work to increase them in order to provide health care for all. That just wasn’t part of his message.

 

[Mamanurse]

Neither do we here, thank you very much. You missed my point and assumed it was an extreme. You voted a government in to make decisions. If you don’t like those decisions, then complain. But don’t complain on the basis that they’re making those decisions, regardless of what they are, when you voted them in! There is a difference between complaining about someone introducing a reform you don’t like, and complaining about someone making that decision in itself “they have no right” well, sadly, they did.

See, again, you’re using the words “take” and “force”. You voted this government into being. It’s like saying that my boss “takes” my hours of work from me, and “forces” me to turn up at work every day, and then “imposes” his money on me.

Good point at the end, I completely agree with that. One of the most smartest things I’ve heard in a while (if you’ll forgive my clumsy compliment) however, let’s use healthcare as an example. One of the reasons Americans object to nationalised healthcare is the belief that its socialist as the government would effectively be introducing another tax, yes? Well, over here, we’re not paranoid about our governments (I can’t think of another word to describe it). I’ve had it said to me by an American friend offline that even if it was cheaper for her to pay a tax instead of a private insurance (and would get more for her money) she’d be against us, because it’s the government. I find that really bizarre.

Apologies if I cause offence, I’m just voicing my opinion on this.

Anyway, to get back on topic, I think people find the notion of the Church being for universal healthcare quite a difficult pill to swallow, because of its label as being “socialist”. Fact is, if everyone had the same equal right and chance of having the same quality of healthcare, regardless of how much money they had, I think we’d be in a good place. Even more if its free-at-point-of-service.

The reason why she continues to use the phrases “take” and “force” are because even though we voted some of these men and women into office, we did not vote for them to cause our nation to go into extreme debt over this healthcare debacle nor make it mandatory to carry healthcare. People are going to be FORCED to purchase healthcare or pay a heavy tax. Employers who run small businesses will be FORCED to pay a higher tax rate if they refuse, or cannot afford, to give their employees health benefits. In fact, many states are pursuing lawsuits against the Federal Government because this healthcare act that was enacted is considered to be unconstitutional in many ways. Our healthcare act does include monies that will be used to fund abortions, maybe yours does not. So in a way the government, while we voted these candidates into office, are forcing the American people to pay for things we don’t want or need.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

True, he didn’t say "Don’t pay. That would have gotten him labeled a tax resister and revolutionary. But he didn’t just say “pay the tax,” either. Because that would have gotten him labeled as a lax Jew who was fine with the Roman occupation.

He did what any good speaker would do when faced with a no-win question. Evade the question by giving an answer which can be taken however the questioner likes.

Not that his answer has anything to do with universal healthcare. I’m just saying that his answer was a non-answer and means nothing in terms of this debate.

He didn’t say, yes you should pay taxes and work to increase them in order to provide health care for all. That just wasn’t part of his message.

Like the Romans would provide healthcare for all. Come on. Show me where Christ taught to leave anyone suffering; i.e. poverty, homelessness, naked, sick, etc. etc.

If we can’t pursue issues like this from our ‘government’, then we cannot pursue any issue through our government. We can’t have it both ways.

I mentioned I work on an ambulance and just got off a terrible 24 hour shift and am dead on my feet. I’ve said my piece and will only respond when someone shows me that Christ taught us to use the excuse of ‘government’ to let others ‘fend for themselves’, especially if we had to share what we had through taxes. That ought to allow me a good long nap.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Christ who gave His very life for everyone, told the rich man to sell all he had and give to the poor. He taught that he who would save his life, will lose it and he who gives his life for Him, will save his life. Love others as He loved us, which was unconditionally. But He didn’t say anything about paying a tax, even if it helps someone else, or even to support a government that would help the least of His. I’m sorry, but it seems like ‘loophole’ hunting to me…

 

[LemonAndLime]

Is this the attitude of the British in general? Oh, we don’t need to have children, when we get old we’ll just import other nations’ and families’ children to take care of us? We’ll just keep the the med students we need here to take care of us rather than going back to their own nations to take care of the people there?

I am sorry, I find this attitude deplorable! It’s like reverse colonization. And what a mess it’s already created that the Europeans brought in immigrants to do the work they didn’t want to do or had insufficient people to do… and now you’re just going to let your elderly people be paid for by immigrants.

It’s not the attitude of the British people at all. Regarding children, people have as many children as they want to. In this day and age, considering the cost of having children and the availability of contraception, many want no more than 2 or 3. Britain has always been open to immigration if you have a work visa, and British-trained nurses/doctors are sought-after abroad, and foreign nurses and doctors would love to come to Britain to work here.

 

[JimG]

Like the Romans would provide healthcare for all. Come on. Show me where Christ taught to leave anyone suffering; i.e. poverty, homelessness, naked, sick, etc. etc.

If we can’t pursue issues like this from our ‘government’, then we cannot pursue any issue through our government. We can’t have it both ways.

I mentioned I work on an ambulance and just got off a terrible 24 hour shift and am dead on my feet. I’ve said my piece and will only respond when someone shows me that Christ taught us to use the excuse of ‘government’ to let others ‘fend for themselves’, especially if we had to share what we had through taxes. That ought to allow me a good long nap.

It’s true, if one reads the account of the last judgment in Matt 25, care for one’s neighbor seems nearly to be the sine qua non for salvation. The King welcomes those on his right, “for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, sick and you comforted me, in prison and you visited me.” And he identifies himself with the least among us.

And yet, the command is an individual, not a group, mandate. He doesn’t offer salvation on the basis that one belongs to a nation which provided for all those things universally through national taxation. A British citizen isn’t saved by the NHS, neither is an American citizen condemned for lack of a National Health Service.

It’s not necessarily an argument for or against the NHS. But it does point to our individual, rather than group, responsibility for our neighbor.

I don’t argue that government cannot help to provide useful services. I argue that the extent to which it does so is based on practical political and economic judgments, not biblical mandate.

From an economic standpoint, I think the nation may be at a debt leveraged tipping point which may severely limit its ability to accomplish all that might be desired. If in trying to provide even more benefits, it tips over the ledge, it may end up doing more harm than good. But that’s an economic and political judgment.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It’s true, if one reads the account of the last judgment in Matt 25, care for one’s neighbor seems nearly to be the sine qua non for salvation. The King welcomes those on his right, “for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, sick and you comforted me, in prison and you visited me.” And he identifies himself with the least among us.

And yet, the command is an individual, not a group, mandate. He doesn’t offer salvation on the basis that one belongs to a nation which provided for all those things universally through national taxation. A British citizen isn’t saved by the NHS, neither is an American citizen condemned for lack of a National Health Service.

It’s not necessarily an argument for or against the NHS. But it does point to our individual, rather than group, responsibility for our neighbor.

I don’t argue that government cannot help to provide useful services. I argue that the extent to which it does so is based on practical political and economic judgments, not biblical mandate.

From an economic standpoint, I think the nation may be at a debt leveraged tipping point which may severely limit its ability to accomplish all that might be desired. If in trying to provide even more benefits, it tips over the ledge, it may end up doing more harm than good. But that’s an economic and political judgment.

Britain did it immediately following WWII.

We were commanded individually, and as a group of followers. We call ourselves a Christian nation, but we argue we cannot do this because of taxation? It’s contradictory in my opinion and it makes me wonder for what reasons?

Two wars at once more than tipped us, but there was a majority of support. Again, I see contradictions.

As I said, Britain, and other countries, have national healthcare systems, but insurance companies and drug companies have been successful in telling the American public how bad those systems are and that it cannot be done. There are many overlooked in our country and I don’t think they can see the bad in those systems. In the end, big money wins out again.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Britain did it immediately following WWII.

We were commanded individually, and as a group of followers. We call ourselves a Christian nation, but we argue we cannot do this because of taxation? It’s contradictory in my opinion and it makes me wonder for what reasons?

Two wars at once more than tipped us, but there was a majority of support. Again, I see contradictions.

As I said, Britain, and other countries, have national healthcare systems, but insurance companies and drug companies have been successful in telling the American public how bad those systems are and that it cannot be done. There are many overlooked in our country and I don’t think they can see the bad in those systems. In the end, big money wins out again.

Don’t forget - those insurance companies have a financial interest in keeping things in American how they are.

Also, if the USA switched to an NHS-style health system tomorrow, it could save money. Considering that the USA government does not pay (using money from taxes) the full amount of the cost of all the care, it is still spending more in dollars per person than the UK government spends on the NHS per person. This is because of the sheer amount of money the USA government has to spend in subsidising the cost of medication, etc.

So, will introducing an NHS-style healthcare system in the USA lead to an increase in taxes, considering the saving it may make? Not sure.

 

[MillTownCath]

Public Schools - Fine
Public Fire/Police Departments - Fine
Public Health Insurance - SOCIALISM!!!

This Times article shows how Republicans and Democrats agree on Health Care a lot more than they, or anyone else, realize.
nytimes.com/2011/06/19/business/economy/19view.html?scp=1&sq=seriously&st=cse

 

[St_Francis]

So we should just leave it so that only the richest has the very best healthcare?

Well, we can rearrange things so that different people get the best health care, but then there will simply be a change in the parameters of who gets what. The health care that exists will always be limited by simple reality. We will never be able to pay for all the healthcare that each person wants.

Which leads to the answer to your next question:

What type decisions?

Who gets what health care and when, and for how long?

One third of our nation’s medical costs occur in the last year of life. Who should decide when treatment ends? A government bureaucracy could just give out cut-off times: no hip replacements if you are older than 70, no heart operations after age 72, no heart attack treatment beyond a certain threshold.

So we’d have a situation in which the young would get health care but not the old.

Or we could have life-time caps, or yearly credits.

I don’t know what the answer is. I think we took a wrong turn a long time ago and are so tangled up that we can’t get out. All I know is that when something is paid for by others, supply wll always outstrip demand.

 

[St_Francis]

Don’t forget - those insurance companies have a financial interest in keeping things in American how they are.

Also, if the USA switched to an NHS-style health system tomorrow, it could save money. Considering that the USA government does not pay (using money from taxes) the full amount of the cost of all the care, it is still spending more in dollars per person than the UK government spends on the NHS per person. This is because of the sheer amount of money the USA government has to spend in subsidising the cost of medication, etc.

So, will introducing an NHS-style healthcare system in the USA lead to an increase in taxes, considering the saving it may make? Not sure.

L&L,
How do people who are becoming doctors pay for their education?

 

[JimG]

England has a population of about 51 million. The U.S. has a population of about 300 million. That difference in scale alone would mean a much larger bureaucracy to manage a national healthcare system.

I have serious doubts about the ability of federal regulators to apply one size fits all solutions to the health care decisions of the nation, but that’s just me. Others may have more confidence in the ability of the bureaucracy; I don’t.

In the end, it’s still our money. The basis of all insurance is the pooling of risk because everybody won’t have the same calamity at the same time. It also means that some will pay more in premiums than they receive in benefits, while others will use more in benefits than they pay.

With auto insurance, nobody sets out to wreck their car or have it stolen just to make sure they can get some benefit from their insurance. But with health care, I suspect that everybody in a federal system is going to want to “get their money’s worth.” Because, after all, they’re paying taxes for it. Yet when it comes time to pay the doc and the hospital and the pharmacist and the MRI tech, nobody’s going to worry because at that point, it’s somebody else’s money. There’s no particular incentive to limit use of services.

And in the last six months of life, with a terminal illness, there’s more incentive to say, “do everything; spare no expense.” Because you’re sure to get more than your money’s worth then. In the end, you’ll still be dead, after having used up a heck of a lot of taxpayer funds, i.e., other people’s money.

 

[Ender]

It’s not that complicated. Healthcare for everyone, regardless of their income. ‘Care for the sick’, just as Jesus spoke of.

Done. As you yourself recognized, not-for-profit hospitals treat everyone.

Yes, we have 'healthcare, but the poor don’t have access to the same quality of healthcare.

The only way even to conceivably give everyone the same quality of health care is to reduce it to a minimum level for everyone. Is that what you really want?

If cancer is discovered, further treatment becomes unavailable. Again, what is Jesus’ intentions on healthcare?

Are you suggesting that Jesus would have identified countries like Somalia and Bangladesh as immoral because they don’t provide universal health care? That may seem a ridiculous assertion, but you didn’t include any evaluation of what is possible; you only asserted that what is desirable is what is required. The entire debate over health care is not whether to provide it but how to do it in a sustainable manner … and that is not a moral debate but a prudential one.

Ender

 

[Carlan]

Quote from Jim G:
And in the last six months of life, with a terminal illness, there’s more incentive to say, “do everything; spare no expense.” Because you’re sure to get more than your money’s worth then. In the end, you’ll still be dead, after having used up a heck of a lot of taxpayer funds, i.e., other people’s money.​

How cynical some are!

It seems I heard from somewhere, “The Holy See defends universal access to medical care.”
Is that a true statement?
Peace, Carlan

 

[JimG]

Quote from Jim G:
And in the last six months of life, with a terminal illness, there’s more incentive to say, “do everything; spare no expense.” Because you’re sure to get more than your money’s worth then. In the end, you’ll still be dead, after having used up a heck of a lot of taxpayer funds, i.e., other people’s money.​

How cynical some are!

It seems I heard from somewhere, “The Holy See defends universal access to medical care.”
Is that a true statement?
Peace, Carlan

Is it cynicism to expect that people will use more services when someone else is paying? Maybe, but if everyone was guaranteed universal access to hamburgers and milkshakes, I expect there would be even more consumption of them.

I don’t know if the Holy See made a statement defending universal access to medical care or not. I’m not even sure what universal access to medical care means, or what the Holy See might propose in the way of particular national health care systems.

People in Moscow, Kansas have access to medical care, but not as easily as people in Wichita, Topeka or Kansas City. I’m not sure how one would equalize that access, or provide the same access worldwide, or if that should be the priority for the world economy.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Is it cynicism to expect that people will use more services when someone else is paying? Maybe, but if everyone was guaranteed universal access to hamburgers and milkshakes, I expect there would be even more consumption of them.

I don’t know if the Holy See made a statement defending universal access to medical care or not. I’m not even sure what universal access to medical care means, or what the Holy See might propose in the way of particular national health care systems.

People in Moscow, Kansas have access to medical care, but not as easily as people in Wichita, Topeka or Kansas City. I’m not sure how one would equalize that access, or provide the same access worldwide, or if that should be the priority for the world economy.

Jim - Are you suggesting that if someone is dying that we should cut back spending on their care because “what’s the point” - I thought you were pro-life!

NHS doctors aren’t going to order every possible investigation and every possible treatment. It’s illogical to suggest so because they’re still professionals, they’ll do what they can while holding up the reputation of doctors.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Done. As you yourself recognized, not-for-profit hospitals treat everyone.

They’re not non-profit. They’re local government and they have an obligation to stabilize life threats, like heart attacks. If corrective surgeries are required, costs are introduced that can jeopardize peoples incomes, or homes, etc.

The only way even to conceivably give everyone the same quality of health care is to reduce it to a minimum level for everyone. Is that what you really want?

Why is that the only remedy? Why can’t we think to increase it to a maximum for everyone?

Are you suggesting that Jesus would have identified countries like Somalia and Bangladesh as immoral because they don’t provide universal health care? That may seem a ridiculous assertion, but you didn’t include any evaluation of what is possible; you only asserted that what is desirable is what is required. The entire debate over health care is not whether to provide it but how to do it in a sustainable manner … and that is not a moral debate but a prudential one.

Ender

Oh, Jesus would have used accounting to view an economy over human life?

This is America and we most certainly have the resources. Wars can find support because it jeopardizes everyone. Healthcare is just too expensive and the high costs only jeopardizes the poor, or people without insurance, so it’s acceptable?

Greed runs the American healthcare system. Insurance companies, drug companies, doctors, and lawyers make extreme wealth from healthcare. European healthcare provides are wealthy by a lot of standards, but it’s not enough for their American counterparts.

The biggest majority of this discussion, nationwide, is about money and not about what’s morally right…