The Morality of a Single Payer Health Care System

[JonNC]

You can think that if you wish. But if you wish to convince others of the morality of the US Constitution you can’t rely on the Constitution itself as a moral authority to support your argument because that is circular reasoning. You can’t prove the Constitution is moral by assuming it is moral first.

Of course not. You rely on the Judeo-Christian tradition and natural law that it has its roots in. The Constitution isn’t moral on its own.

 

[JonNC]

I pray you balance this with the fact that the market cannot solve all problems in an acceptable way. As such, government intervention is absolutely necessary.

Of course I do. The market cannot solve all problems. The Church is supposed to be there to make sure it happens.
As for government, it too has a significant role, but at least in the United States, that role is supposed to be limited by the enumerated powers granted to it by the people through the states in the constitution. If one thinks government should play a bigger role, have more power, then pass an amendment.
Government intervention in healthcare may be necessary, but the track record of the central government in its interventions hasn’t been good. State government may be better prepared to intervene when needed.

 

[JonNC]

=Vonsalza;14894918]H

So to be perfectly clear, just so I understand your paradigm on these things, systems like the Canadian system and systems the British system are effectively the same to you. Right?
If so, :doh2:

If government controls the purse strings, it controls what is purchased. Whether or not the British and Canadian systems are effectively the same is irrelevant to me beyons that point.

Then I apologize, but I’d still like the question answered. You’re fearful of tyranny and death and all sorts of other major problems. So what is your reply to the fact that we’re not seeing anything like that in other countries? Sure, there are issues, but so did pre-ACA and post-ACA healthcare in America.

I already answered it in that post. I don’t think you are looking particularly closely at other countries. Cuba, for example, which the left likes to point to.

Sure, plenty of Canadians are critical of their healthcare. But it seems the great majority are very satisfied and very defensive of their national program.

then good for them.

There are at least a score of nations with such a regime that are doing a better job than we are, Jon.

So, as long as the trains run on time?

100% incorrect and you darn well know it. Shame on you, seriously.
“Big-pharma” WILL negotiate with the government on the price of a drug as they hold the monopoly on it (duh!). What will be different is that both parties will finally have negotiative parity. One party controls the supply, one party controls the demand. Parity. They both have each other over a barrel. As such, the negotiations will be on even ground.

You said it, that government shouldn’t negotiate with big pharma. Go back and look. I thank God for “big-pharma”. There products saved my life on more than one occasion.

Papa and a rapidly growing number of people also see it as a right.

It is a right. I think it a right covered under the 9th amendment. Hence, government doesn’t have a say in it. Government doesn’t provide it. and only when it is used to harm others, “Congress shall make no law…”

Jon, you need to learn that the local hospital is, in many, many ways, not a traditional competitive environment. As such, a lot of your ideas that apply to the competitive market simply do not work here. It’s like you’re trying to look at quantum physics with a Newtonian approach. No bueno.

And as I mentioned before, the same applies to other goods and services in rural settings.

It’s ALWAYS a market. The overwhelming majority of markets in which you participate are regulated in some way…

True. When government controls it, it isn’t a free market. Freedom kind of important to me.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Of course not. You rely on the Judeo-Christian tradition and natural law that it has its roots in. The Constitution isn’t moral on its own.

If the morality of the Constitution is based on natural law, then skip the Constitution completely and try to use reference to natural law to show directly that single-payer health insurance is immoral. I don’t think you can do it.

 

[Rau]

Of course I do. The market cannot solve all problems. The Church is supposed to be there to make sure it happens.
As for government, it too has a significant role, but at least in the United States, that role is supposed to be limited by the enumerated powers granted to it by the people through the states in the constitution. If one thinks government should play a bigger role, have more power, then pass an amendment.
Government intervention in healthcare may be necessary, but the track record of the central government in its interventions hasn’t been good. State government may be better prepared to intervene when needed.

Do we hear much complaining about the fed government acting beyond constitutional authority in major areas like healthcare or others? Is either side of politics taking up the issue? Are the States up in arms? People marching in the Street? Is the Supreme Court looking for an excuse to address the topic? I have visited the US a few times. The subject didn’t really come up…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If government controls the purse strings, it controls what is purchased.

That is true only to the extent that it controls what is purchase with the funds provided through the government. It need. Or control what you purchase with your own funds. It is quite possible to have both a government paid system and a private pay system as many countries have.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You said it, that government shouldn’t negotiate with big pharma. Go back and look. I thank God for “big-pharma”. There products saved my life on more than one occasion.

That’s good. Big pharma is good. That doesn’t mean government should not negotiate for good pricing.

It is a right. I think it a right covered under the 9th amendment. Hence, government doesn’t have a say in it. Government doesn’t provide it. and only when it is used to harm others, “Congress shall make no law…”

Your constant reference to the Constitution as if it were a primary universal moral document is tiring. Save that for when the discussion is about US legal matters. But the world is much bigger than the US, and other nations have their Constitutions which they also believe are based on natural law.

 

[Vonsalza]

Of course I do. The market cannot solve all problems. The Church is supposed to be there to make sure it happens.

And here is an error that I think you’ll agree you’ve made, if I interpreted correctly:

So the market solves what woes it can and the remainder is solved by the Church?

In a secular republic filled with people from non-faiths and non-Christian faiths, this is unambiguously unacceptable.

So if not the Church, was is the authoritative institution which every American of all creeds must obey?

The government and its laws.

 

[Vonsalza]

If government controls the purse strings, it controls what is purchased. Whether or not the British and Canadian systems are effectively the same is irrelevant to me beyons that point.

Then there’s an absolutely critical difference that you choose to be blind to, I’m afraid. :sad_yes:

I already answered it in that post.

With a flat denial? So the data isn’t true? You have a rational basis for that?

You said it, that government shouldn’t negotiate with big pharma. Go back and look.

I did. And shame on you again for doubling-down on that dishonesty. The quote from post #177 was:
In single-payer countries, most medications cost half of what they do in the US. Why? Individuals have no negotiating leverage with big-pharma. None. A single-payer healthcare system, on the other hand, negotiates price for that entire market. For the pharmaceutical company, it’s either “agree on a price” or “lose access to that market”. They don’t want to lose access to the market.

What’s another term for “agree on a price”?
Negotiate.

As such, they’re not barring big-pharma from the negotiating table. To the contrary, they’re the only one that can match big-pharma in negotiating power.

I thank God for “big-pharma”.

“In Shkreli we trust”, eh? :hypno::hypno::hypno:

It is a right. I think it a right covered under the 9th amendment.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

So how does a single-payer system “deny or disparage” the rights of the people to healthcare? It seems a lot more “denial and disparagement” results in the private system.

And as I mentioned before, the same applies to other goods and services in rural settings.

And as I’ve said before, you’re assuming that all goods and services enjoy the same economy of competition. This is flatly incorrect and an intro to macro-econ at your local community college would illuminate your darkness on this matter. Ask your prof. about “natural monopoly”.

True. When government controls it, it isn’t a free market.

Again, as virtually all markets in America are regulated by the government, if not directly, you’ve probably never experienced the “freedom” you so desire.

My pal Jerry from Taiwan appreciates America because of the food. He knows that when he eats food in America, it’s actually, really food. He’s a big fan of our regulations on the matter.

 

[o_mlly]

By all means, keep it in the back of your mind. It’s a smart thing to do. Helps you maybe preempt where your opponent’s going to go. But if you’ve ever tried to dismiss an argument on this principal alone, you’ve committed a classic fallacy of logic.

And, if one does not take their own advice then they are a hypocrite.

Let’s test your logic. You argue that this Mother Jones’ article supports your notion that a single payer health insurance system run by the federal government is a good idea.

Mother Jones’ claims, citing “big pharma,” that some of our legislators act, not for the people, but rather for the special interests groups who lobby them by donating large sums in campaign contributions enabling these corrupt legislators to keep their jobs. I agree. It is worth noting that “big pharm” pales as a PAC compared to the AJJ, the tort trial lawyers PAC. 96% of their donations go to Democratic legislators.
2016 PAC Contribution Data
Contributions from this PAC to federal candidates (list recipients)
(96% to Democrats, 4% to Republicans) $1,854,500
Contributions to this PAC from individual donors of $200 or more ( list donors) $4,471,709
opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00024521

The problem is not a Republican or Democrat problem. The problem is systemic. The system is immoral. Mother Jones offers no solution to this root problem of special interest groups corrupting our legislators. We know that the legislator’s first job is to keep that job. The corrupt legislator’s second job is to make that job more powerful.

So, without fixing this systemic problem, why would anyone propose that we would be better served if we further and dramatically expand the federal control of our lives? Essentially, according to Mother Jones, controlled by these special interest groups.

This grab for more power over your life is just another lie. We do not have a health care crisis. See post #186. Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) and watch this 14 minutes of clarity. youtube.com/watch?v=LNcrhluxPy8

The idea that single payer systems work well in other countries is a lie.
NHS 'rationing leaves patients in pain’
bbc.com/news/health-40485724
’Deeply worrying’ waits for hospital beds

bbc.com/news/health-38228411
Long waits for surgery 'have tripled in four years’

bbc.com/news/health-40122075
Waiting times worsen in Australian public hospitals

wsws.org/en/articles/2017/03/08/amah-m08.html

AMA (Australian Medical Association)public hospital report shows ‘woeful’ and underfunded system
abc.net.au/news/2017-02-17/ama-public-hospital-report-shows-woeful-and-underfunded-system/8278816

Add to this (il)logic train that we agree the largest single payer system that we do have – Medicare – is unsustainable. Yet, you recommend we massively expand what we know does not work for the rest of the population.

Here’s a parody of that same logic:
Father of 5 tells his kids in Ohio, “I’ve got good news and bad news.”
Kids say, “Give us the bad news first.”
Dad says, “The car failed the safety inspection.”
Kids ask, “Awww. What’s the good news, Dad?”
Dad says, “Get in the car everyone. We’re all driving to Disneyland!”

 

[JimG]

Is it too late to post this link?

After experiencing British and US healthcare, this family says single payer is abominable.

 

[Vonsalza]

Let’s test your logic. You argue that this Mother Jones’ article supports your notion that a single payer health insurance system run by the federal government is a good idea.

Whoa! Halt! Stop! SCREEECH!

The exact usage of my citation was:
“End the ban on Medicare negotiating what it pays for drugs. Lobbyists have the poor souls fighting with one arm behind their backs.”

Which was a direct reply to your:
“Medicare has been and continues to be on the brink of bankruptcy despite increases in premiums and cutbacks in benefits per capita.”

As such, I was pointing out that a portion of Medicare’s financial woes stems from its lobbied ban on negotiating what it pays for drugs, contrary to what an open market would require.

Ergo no, your assertion in this post is incorrect. It can only begin to look vaguely correct if you “widen the goal posts”, of this specific point into the wider argument, which is yet another fallacy of logic.

The problem is not a Republican or Democrat problem.

Did I ever say that it was? :nope:

I’ve always had some weird difficulty being able to distinguish clearly between non sequiturs and red herrings… But this is one of the two.

We know that the legislator’s first job is to keep that job. The corrupt legislator’s second job is to make that job more powerful.

Please don’t masquerade your opinions as facts…

The idea that single payer systems work well in other countries is a lie.

This is another perfect example of you widening the goalposts…

I don’t think anyone has claimed they’re perfect. Of course any system will have issues. Issues are inherent to any complex system.

The claim is that they are better. That claim seems to enjoy support by institutional measures hitherto provided, as well as popular support.

CANADIANS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORT UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE; THINK OBAMA IS ON RIGHT TRACK IN UNITED STATES

Why the British love the National Health Service

Here’s a parody of that same logic:

Oh please… :doh2:

 

[JonNC]

That’s good. Big pharma is good. That doesn’t mean government should not negotiate for good pricing.

What is the negotiating strength a corporation brings to the table against the government, particularly if the government is the single payer? Only that which the government allows them to have.

Your constant reference to the Constitution as if it were a primary universal moral document is tiring. Save that for when the discussion is about US legal matters. But the world is much bigger than the US, and other nations have their Constitutions which they also believe are based on natural law.

I’m sorry you’re tiered of it. It is the reference point for citizens of the United States, where I live. Others on this thread continue to bring up what other countries do. While it is immaterial to me, and I see no reason to emulate them, I’m certainly not going to complain that they bring them up, and I haven’t seen you complain about their references to other countries.

 

[JonNC]

And here is an error that I think you’ll agree you’ve made, if I interpreted correctly:

So the market solves what woes it can and the remainder is solved by the Church?

In a secular republic filled with people from non-faiths and non-Christian faiths, this is unambiguously unacceptable.
There is nothing unacceptable of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and even atheists exercising their religious freedom. One of the tenants of the Christian faith is to care of our neighbors. Our neighbors include non-Christians. To claim that people of faith exercising that faith is unacceptable is authoritarian.

So if not the Church, was is the authoritative institution which every American of all creeds must obey?
is authoritarian.
The government and its laws.
I’m sorry. this is nonsensical. Where did I say the Church should be an authoritative institution. I was talking about charity. I continue to be amazed at the insistence that government be in charge of healthcare.

 

[JonNC]

=“Vonsalza, post:249, topic:447347, full:true”]

Then there’s an absolutely critical difference that you choose to be blind to, I’m afraid. :sad_yes:

Why would i pretend to recognize something that isn’t true?

I did. And shame on you again for doubling-down on that dishonesty. The quote from post #177 was:
In single-payer countries, most medications cost half of what they do in the US. Why? Individuals have no negotiating leverage with big-pharma. None. A single-payer healthcare system, on the other hand, negotiates price for that entire market. For the pharmaceutical company, it’s either “agree on a price” or “lose access to that market”. They don’t want to lose access to the market.

And shame on you for calling that negotiation. That’s called tyranny. And here’s what happens next: if they choose to not agree on price, and not sell their products, the government will come in an nationalize it, claiming it is for the “common good”. And that’s called tyranny, not negotiation.

What’s another term for “agree on a price”?
Negotiate.

Agree to a price - at the point of a gun isn’t negotiation.

As such, they’re not barring big-pharma from the negotiating table. To the contrary, they’re the only one that can match big-pharma in negotiating power.
You will give us your products and you will like it. And that is exactly the way they will treat healthcare professionals. And you know it!

“In Shkreli we trust”, eh? :hypno::hypno::hypno:

In every group of humans, there are scoundrels. And to attempt to smear all pharmaceutical in this way is contemptible.

“> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

So how does a single-payer system “deny or disparage” the rights of the people to healthcare? It seems a lot more “denial and disparagement” results in the private system.

It confiscates that right and turns it into a government power. Government has no mandate to provide for rights. They do not give computers to you if you want to exercise your free press rights, a microphone for your free speech, and AR-15 to exercise your individual right to keep and bear arms. And nor should they.

And as I’ve said before, you’re assuming that all goods and services enjoy the same economy of competition. This is flatly incorrect and an intro to macro-econ at your local community college would illuminate your darkness on this matter. Ask your prof. about “natural monopoly”.

The monopoly in healthcare would be a single payer system, but you seem to be in favor of that, apparently for the joy of milking the shareholders of pharma companies, and doctors.

Again, as virtually all markets in America are regulated by the government, if not directly, you’ve probably never experienced the “freedom” you so desire.

As little regulation as necessary is the best policy. Certainly our freedom has been reduced in the last 8 years.

 

[upant]

nonsense. the majority of us would not profit from a sps. we would just pay more taxes. coverage would be questionable. there comes a point on how much is too much. look at social security we do not have enough people paying for what is being spent. when will it go bankrupt? what will we do when the money runs out?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That’s good. Big pharma is good. That doesn’t mean government should not negotiate for good pricing.

It is fine to bring up the US or other countries as examples to illustrate a point. But you bring up the US constitution as a primary authoritative source on questions outside of US law. You cannot prove a moral point by using the US constitution as you exclusive source. That is an invalid argument.

 

[mercymain]

Has the USCCB ever spoken on the subject of single payer healthcare systems? Have any Popes (including Pope Francis) ever said anything? Has the Vatican or the Magisterium in general ever said anything on the subject?

I honestly don’t know. But I can’t imagine a single-payer system being any less moral than the cluster we currently have.

 

[Viki63]

“Health is a universal right, and access to healthcare services cannot be a privilege, says the Pope to the members of Doctors with Africa.”

https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2016/05/07/160507c.html

 

[JonNC]

“Health is a universal right, and access to healthcare services cannot be a privilege, says the Pope to the members of Doctors with Africa.”

Health is a universal right, and access to healthcare services cannot be a privilege, says the Pope to the members of Doctors with Africa (CUAMM)

I agree. I just don’t believe someone has a right to another person’s property and labor in order to acquire it.