Has the Church always supported universal healthcare?

[Nate13]

It’s very clear what they mean. Everyone has the right to receive healthcare - regardless of financial status.

What about if they were a chain smoker since they were 18? How about if they recklessly have one-night stands and end up with AIDS? Are you truly helping that person by guaranteeing them before they make these decisions that there will be no lasting consequences to their actions? Are you willing to bankrupt yourself and hinder your own ability to protect your family because of the reckless actions of others? If a person is willingly to pay for the cigarettes themselves that got them in that position, why aren’t they willingly to pay for the care to deal with the consequences?

I also have to ask what is going to stop the government from regulating all aspects of your life related to your health once it is responsible for paying to keep that health?

 

[Ender]

I would think the Church has always supported the idea of everyone receiving healthcare.

If this was so, wouldn’t the Church also support the idea of everyone receiving food and shelter? Wouldn’t this imply that the Church supports universal food and universal housing - that is, paid for by someone else? Do you really believe the Church is teaching that one person can morally demand to be supported by the labor of others? It is one thing to teach that no one should be denied these things but quite another to say that someone else must provide them.

It’s a RIGHT to be able to receive healthcare.

It may be your right to receive it but it is surely not my obligation to provide it and that is really what this discussion is about. Even if the Church was to say I have a moral obligation to provide you with free health care that still does not translate into saying you have a moral right to seize my assets if I fail to meet my end of the bargain.

We clearly have an obligation to help others and the government has a duty to provide reasonable support to the poor. There is, however, nothing whatever in any Church doctrine that specifies how this is to be accomplished. The idea that the Church supports universal health care - aka the NHS or Obamacare - is ludicrous.

Ender

 

[LemonAndLime]

What about if they were a chain smoker since they were 18?

This is a continued debate going on in the NHS, but in the specific case of smokers it’s often said that the amount of money in tax that they’ve paid on their cigarettes over the years, as well as on the national insurance tax, has paid for their healthcare. Also, the average life expectancy of someone with lung cancer is less than a year (once diagnosed) so they’re not going to be using the NHS that long. But that’s a horrible thought and I would never deny a smoker care if I was a doctor, or head of the NHS.

How about if they recklessly have one-night stands and end up with AIDS?

Then they’ll be given advice on their behaviour and medication to help keep away the HIV virus/AIDS for as long as possible. By the way, medication isn’t free in the UK for anyone unless you’re in full-time education or over the age of 65. But, some people with long term conditions (such as AIDS) can have their medication costs subsidised by paying in bulk for a certificate, which lets them get their meds cheaper in the long run.

Are you truly helping that person by guaranteeing them before they make these decisions that there will be no lasting consequences to their actions?

I think in the cases of AIDS and lung cancer there are lasting consequences for smoking or risky sexual behaviour.

Are you willing to bankrupt yourself and hinder your own ability to protect your family because of the reckless actions of others?

I pay taxes. I’m not bankrupting myself at all. 20% of my wages currently go to the taxman, and I’m managing fine. Surely the same can be said of expensive health insurance fees? Whats the difference financially?

If a person is willingly to pay for the cigarettes themselves that got them in that position, why aren’t they willingly to pay for the care to deal with the consequences?

Who said they’re not willing? Many smokers go to private hospitals as a result of smoking because they chose to. We have national healthcare and private here in the UK.

I also have to ask what is going to stop the government from regulating all aspects of your life related to your health once it is responsible for paying to keep that health?

Well, I live in the UK where we have the NHS and we’re not quite yet living in a totaliarian state where we’re being told what we can or cannot eat, etc, and I don’t see it happening any time soon either. So you’re just scaremongering. It’s just as likely to happen in your country as mine.

Also - just to add, the American system of insurance works the same as the NHS. Your insurance fees, unless you use what you paid in, is also paying for a smoker’s or an AIDs victim’s healthcare fees as they claim their insurance. So what’s the difference?

 

[Nate13]

This is a continued debate going on in the NHS, but in the specific case of smokers it’s often said that the amount of money in tax that they’ve paid on their cigarettes over the years, as well as on the national insurance tax, has paid for their healthcare. Also, the average life expectancy of someone with lung cancer is less than a year (once diagnosed) so they’re not going to be using the NHS that long. But that’s a horrible thought and I would never deny a smoker care if I was a doctor, or head of the NHS.

So your saying a precedent has been set there then? Things that are bad for our health will be taxed, to compensate for the damage they do? This isn’t scare mongering, its fact. With government healthcare, every decision you make that affects your health becomes the governments business if they so choose to. If they don’t directly come out against it, they will get you from the back door with something like a tax.

Then they’ll be given advice on their behaviour and medication to help keep away the HIV virus/AIDS for as long as possible. By the way, medication isn’t free in the UK for anyone unless you’re in full-time education or over the age of 65. But, some people with long term conditions (such as AIDS) can have their medication costs subsidised by paying in bulk for a certificate, which lets them get their meds cheaper in the long run.

So what are you guys paying for if medication is not free? What good does getting diagnosed for free do if I can’t pay for the meds your doctor’s prescribe? Are you really helping anyone then?

I think in the cases of AIDS and lung cancer there are lasting consequences for smoking or risky sexual behaviour. I pay taxes. I’m not bankrupting myself at all. 20% of my wages currently go to the taxman, and I’m managing fine. Surely the same can be said of expensive health insurance fees? Whats the difference financially?

Sure, but your not fully covered. You still have to pay for medications (assuming your not a student or over 65). Would you have to pay for surgery if you needed that?

Who said they’re not willing? Many smokers go to private hospitals as a result of smoking because they chose to. We have national healthcare and private here in the UK.

Are you sure that doesn’t just speak to the lack of care they might get at a public hospital and private healthcare is preferable if you have the money?

Well, I live in the UK where we have the NHS and we’re not quite yet living in a totaliarian state where we’re being told what we can or cannot eat, etc, and I don’t see it happening any time soon either. So you’re just scaremongering.

I’m glad. Keep fighting.

It’s just as likely to happen in your country as mine.

American’s in general have a more individualistic philosophy on life so I don’t think its quite as likely, however obviously with a law set to be in place that isn’t saying much.

 

[LemonAndLime]

So your saying a precedent has been set here then? Things that are bad for our health will be taxed, to compensate for the damage they do? This isn’t scare mongering, its fact. With government healthcare, every decision you make that affects your health becomes the governments business.

No. Everything that you buy has VAT tax placed on it, whether that’s a new TV or a pack of cigarettes. There are no extra taxes on unhealthy things in the UK.

So what are you guys paying for if medication is not free? What good does getting diagnosed for free do if I can’t pay for the meds your doctor’s prescribe? Are you really helping anyone then?

Good point. It’s important though to point out that by paying for prescription medications you’re contributing again towards the cost of the NHS, and that more expensive treatments - such as chemotherapy or an operation - have no additional cost attached. I don’t have a problem paying the prescription fee for antibiotics for a chest infection, but I would find it hard to pay for an operation to mend a broken bone.

Sure, but your not fully covered. You still have to pay for medications (assuming your not a student or over 65). Would you have to pay for surgery if you needed that?

No. There’s just a charge for medications. Currently that’s around £7. However, its per item. So if you were prescribed 5 different medications, that would be £35. But people with incurable conditions (in other words, they need the medication or they will be even more sick) can pay reduced fees, or even no fees at all in some extreme cases such as cancer.

Are you sure that doesn’t just speak to the lack of care they might get at a public hospital and private healthcare is preferable if you have the money?

Care audits have shown that time and time again the quality of care whether that’s by the surgeon or the nurse are the same in private and national hospitals. The only real difference is often, sadly, the waiting list. The reason the lists are shorter on private hospitals is because not everyone can afford it, the same in every other country with charity/state and private hospitals.

I’m glad. Keep fighting.

American’s in general have a more individualistic philosophy on life so I don’t think its quite as likely.

Thank you, and I agree that the USA has more of an individual philosophy. But all that can change, and I don’t think here in the UK we’re much closer than you are in the USA. Freedom to chose to smoke etc are still considered an important right. The only thing in contention really is whether your freedom to smoke is greater than a non-smokers right to clean air, for example - hence banning smoking in public buildings here.

 

[Nate13]

Thank you, and I agree that the USA has more of an individual philosophy. But all that can change, and I don’t think here in the UK we’re much closer than you are in the USA. Freedom to chose to smoke etc are still considered an important right. The only thing in contention really is whether your freedom to smoke is greater than a non-smokers right to clean air, for example - hence banning smoking in public buildings here.

My philosophy can somewhat be described by this parable:

Matthew 7:24-28
New International Version (NIV)
The Wise and Foolish Builders
24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”

28 When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching,

If we keep running in and saving the foolish person who built his house on sand, are we really doing him a favor? Will he ever learn that building his house on sand is a bad idea? You eventually have to ask who is the stupid one. The guy who built his house there knowing you are going to keep saving it, or you? Its similar to FEMA here in the U.S that keeps coming in and paying to rebuild houses of people who built houses in places were hurricanes are known to come through every few years. The hurricane comes and takes out the house, and FEMA comes in and helps them rebuild it at little to no cost to them in the same spot. Its like watching an endless cycle of people bashing their heads into a wall repeatedly.

If someone really just wants that great view of the ocean and is willingly to take the risk of building a house there that’s great, but don’t ask me to pay for it when it gets destroyed.

 

[mexilad]

The Church does not necessarily support health care provided by the GOVERNMENT. There is a huge difference between doing as God wants us to do and having the government take our resources by force. Especially in the case that abortions will be part of any “universal health care” provided.

AMEN!!!

 

[Swiss_Guy]

If this was so, wouldn’t the Church also support the idea of everyone receiving food and shelter? Wouldn’t this imply that the Church supports universal food and universal housing - that is, paid for by someone else? Do you really believe the Church is teaching that one person can morally demand to be supported by the labor of others? It is one thing to teach that no one should be denied these things but quite another to say that someone else must provide them.
It may be your right to receive it but it is surely not my obligation to provide it and that is really what this discussion is about. Even if the Church was to say I have a moral obligation to provide you with free health care that still does not translate into saying you have a moral right to seize my assets if I fail to meet my end of the bargain.

We clearly have an obligation to help others and the government has a duty to provide reasonable support to the poor. There is, however, nothing whatever in any Church doctrine that specifies how this is to be accomplished. The idea that the Church supports universal health care - aka the NHS or Obamacare - is ludicrous.

Ender

You’re putting words into my typing . And I’m assuming the Church supports universal food and shelter; why don’t you? Everyone should be able to have it. I think we are morally obligated to give alms. In a sense they help support others.

Now, I never said the government has a duty to provide reasonable support to the poor (at least I don’t recall writing that). But the Church has that duty. And I’m pretty sure the Church supports universal healthcare from what I understand (Reinhard Marx, Faithful Citizenship, Economic Justice for all, etc).

BTW I think Obamacare is cr*p. Just sayin’

 

[LemonAndLime]

My philosophy can somewhat be described by this parable:

If we keep running in and saving the foolish person who built his house on sand, are we really doing him a favor? Will he ever learn that building his house on sand is a bad idea? You eventually have to ask who is the stupid one. The guy who built his house there knowing you are going to keep saving it, or you? Its similar to FEMA here in the U.S that keeps coming in and paying to rebuild houses of people who built houses in places were hurricanes are known to come through every few years. The hurricane comes and takes out the house, and FEMA comes in and helps them rebuild it at little to no cost to them in the same spot. Its like watching an endless cycle of people bashing their heads into a wall repeatedly.

If someone really just wants that great view of the ocean and is willingly to take the risk of building a house there that’s great, but don’t ask me to pay for it when it gets destroyed.

I’m not sure your situation fits. If someone smokes all their life and then has to be treated for lung cancer, surely they have already had their “punishment” and I’m pretty sure that they’re not going to do it again and come back later when they’re dead. And again, the NHS is no different to insurance. Many people pay in all their life and don’t need to “claim”, while the money that you do pay in goes towards paying the healthcare of people who need it - whether they brought it on themselves or not.

 

[Nate13]

I’m not sure your situation fits. If someone smokes all their life and then has to be treated for lung cancer, surely they have already had their “punishment” and I’m pretty sure that they’re not going to do it again and come back later when they’re dead. And again, the NHS is no different to insurance. Many people pay in all their life and don’t need to “claim”, while the money that you do pay in goes towards paying the healthcare of people who need it - whether they brought it on themselves or not.

Your right with the smoking example, but I think the STD example applies. A much better example though and also one that is much more broad reaching is obesity. Obesity brings on a whole plague of problems that absolutely skyrocket the cost of healthcare. I don’t know how rampant a problem obesity is where you live, but supposedly 34% of American adults are obese.

An obese person will have an average of $8,315 in medical bills a year in 2018 compared with $5,855 for an adult at a healthy weight. That’s a difference of $2,460.
usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2009-11-17-future-obesity-costs_N.htm

On average, treating an obese person cost $1,244 more in 2002 than treating a healthy-weight person did. In 1987, the gap was $272.

How can the government charge everyone equally for healthcare when its apparent that we are not all equal when it comes to how much healthcare cost?

 

[LemonAndLime]

Your right with the smoking example, but I think the STD example applies. A much better example though and also one that is much more broad reaching is obesity. Obesity brings on a whole plague of problems that absolutely skyrocket the cost of healthcare. I don’t know how rampant a problem obesity is where you live, but supposedly 34% of American adults are obese.

STI examples could work, but things like HIV/herpes etc are punishment in themselves (STDs). Obesity isn’t as much of a problem here in the UK as it is in America, but we’re catching up. This again is another debate. Here, someone can get free on the NHS a gastric band so they can lose weight. Some people think its unfair as only really overweight people get it, and “the rest of us” have to work really hard to lose weight. It is also noteable that on the NHS, if a woman’s breasts are dramatically different in size, she can get a boob job paid for. That is again something that causes concern, and something I don’t like either.

But, what is/isn’t paid for by the NHS is constantly under review and changes. No doubt as the obesity epidemic continues and it becomes more expensive, the NHS may have to chose to stop offering gastric band surgery for free and instead focus the money on healthy eating programs. Already in the UK you can have help to lose weight and see a dietician etc for free, because I suppose thats cheaper than any surgery/health problems you’ll have if you become overweight.

How can the government charge everyone equally for healthcare when its apparent that we are not all equal when it comes to how much healthcare cost?

That could apply to every kind of tax you pay. Someone could be in a car crash, and the expense (excluding healthcare) of sending policemen, fireman, etc would make that person more expensive than someone else. Should they pay more tax? But then, as its the government supplying the healthcare, it has another source of income apart from the national insurance tax - so, using the example of a smoker again, a lot of people have paid for the care they’re going to need already.

By the way, thanks for debating with me respectfully. More than once on this forum I have brought up nationalised healthcare and it always seemed to turn nasty, this hasn’t, so thanks.

Anyway, I want to ask a question. What happens if your medical insurance doesn’t cover your injury, and you have no means to pay for emergency medical fees? Does the government in the USA offer any assistance?