The Morality of a Single Payer Health Care System

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
o_mlly said:
“Illinois Republican Governor Bruce Rauner signed a controversial bill into law on Thursday to expand state-funded coverage of abortions for low-income residents on Medicaid and state employees.”
Click to expand...
Shocker indeed. I don’t know why he did that.
 
o_mlly said:
…single-payer without guarantees that tax money will not be used to murder is an immoral system. We are obligated to avoid evil.
Click to expand...
The mere absence of a guarantee that it can never be used for murder does make the system immoral. It would take the actual use for murder to make it immoral. A “guarantee” doesn’t have much meaning anyway because they could still go back on their word.
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
I agree. Therefore single-payer without guarantees that tax money will not be used to murder is an immoral system. We are obligated to avoid evil.
Click to expand...
My point there was that this doesn’t apply just to tax-payer funded systems. It applies to any system where you have to join some sort of collective or cooperative in order to get care. Do you imagine now that those of us on employer plans don’t face the same issue?
 
I think these are 2 separate issues. We need health care for everyone. We do not need to fund abortions, as they are not health care.
Some states are passing laws banning abortions after 20 weeks, and some are banning partial birth abortions. Those are good laws. Also Planned Parenthood is being investigated in many states for illegal activities and not reporting abuse of minors. So hopefully those legal actions will multiply.
Meanwhile, people do need health care, and it’s being rationed by the insurance companies based on ability to pay.
 
DarkLight said:
40.png
o_mlly:
I agree. Therefore single-payer without guarantees that tax money will not be used to murder is an immoral system. We are obligated to avoid evil.
Click to expand...
My point there was that this doesn’t apply just to tax-payer funded systems. It applies to any system where you have to join some sort of collective or cooperative in order to get care. Do you imagine now that those of us on employer plans don’t face the same issue?
Click to expand...
The difference is you don’t have to work for that employer. But you can’t escape a single payer system unless you’re among the relatively wealthy, and then only if the single payer system lets you.
 
JonNC said:
The difference is you don’t have to work for that employer. But you can’t escape a single payer system unless you’re among the relatively wealthy, and then only if the single payer system lets you.
Click to expand...
Unless you have one of an incredibly, incredibly narrow set of skills…you probably have to work for an employer that funds contraception and abortion. The whole “just get a different job” mentality is nice, but doesn’t work for most people.
 
DarkLight said:
40.png
JonNC:
The difference is you don’t have to work for that employer. But you can’t escape a single payer system unless you’re among the relatively wealthy, and then only if the single payer system lets you.
Click to expand...
Unless you have one of an incredibly, incredibly narrow set of skills…you probably have to work for an employer that funds contraception and abortion. The whole “just get a different job” mentality is nice, but doesn’t work for most people.
Click to expand...
All the more reason to expand voluntary health associations that would allow people to form large associations across state lines. The more we take the control of healthcare out of the hands of secular government, the more moral it can be
 
Last edited:
JonNC said:
All the more reason to expand vomuntary health associations that would allow people to form large associations across state lines. The more we take the control of healthcare out of the hands of secular government, the more moral it can be
Click to expand...
Large associations, meaning anyone who didn’t have enough people with their same beliefs in their local area still would get stuck paying for care they don’t support.
 
JonNC said:
Well, make a choice. The choice in single payer is no choice. There is already a Catholic medishare, as well as others.

Allow large associations to form nationwide. Trump could do this by executive order.
Click to expand...
Catholic medishare which, you’ll note, wouldn’t actually help people like me, because it’s too expensive. That’s not really much of a choice for me now either, is it? And I don’t buy for one minute that it’s because of government intervention - it’s because our health system at large is set up for cost-sharing, but most people don’t actually want to contribute extra for other people. Heck, I’d bet my employer would drop me for being too expensive if there weren’t laws blocking them from knowing.
 
[quote="DarkLight, post:351, topic:447347, full:

Catholic medishare which, you’ll note, wouldn’t actually help people like me, because it’s too expensive. That’s not really much of a choice for me now either, is it? And I don’t buy for one minute that it’s because of government intervention - it’s because our health system at large is set up for cost-sharing, but most people don’t actually want to contribute extra for other people. Heck, I’d bet my employer would drop me for being too expensive if there weren’t laws blocking them from knowing.
[/quote]

If you actually look into voluntary associations, you’ll find that people can build huge associations nationwide to negotiate for lower rates, something individuals and small businesses can’t do.
Or, we can submit to a government system that requires us to participate in the killing of the soon to be born, the coercion of doctors and others to accept fees without negotiation, in short the certainty of an immoral system
 
JonNC said:
If you actually look into voluntary associations, you’ll find that people can build huge associations nationwide to negotiate for lower rates, something individuals and small businesses can’t do.
Click to expand...
Oh I have. Like I said, I’ve also looked into them enough to know that part of how they manage is not admitting people like me. (Or technically “admitting” me in a way that doesn’t actually help.)
 
DarkLight said:
40.png
JonNC:
If you actually look into voluntary associations, you’ll find that people can build huge associations nationwide to negotiate for lower rates, something individuals and small businesses can’t do.
Click to expand...
Oh I have. Like I said, I’ve also looked into them enough to know that part of how they manage is not admitting people like me. (Or technically “admitting” me in a way that doesn’t actually help.)
Click to expand...
Then you haven’t looked into healthcare associations as offered by Rand Paul.
But even if you are right, and there is a small fraction of the population unable to get reasonable healthcare, then using the principle of subsidiarity, we work up the levels until those in need get the care they need. Since the vast majority of Americans like their healthcare without government coercion, let them alone, and target care to those in need
 
JonNC said:
Then you haven’t looked into healthcare associations as offered by Rand Paul.

But even if you are right, and there is a small fraction of the population unable to get reasonable healthcare, then using the principle of subsidiarity, we work up the levels until those in need get the care they need. Since the vast majority of Americans like their healthcare without government coercion, let them alone, and target care to those in need
Click to expand...
See, I’ve seen what happens when you try to do that.

It can’t be done easily at the lower levels because there’s not enough funds that people can gather.

And it can’t be done at higher levels easily, because it’s a smaller fraction of the population, and thus not “important” to politicians. So when the budget needs trimming it’s one of the first things that gets cut, and a lot of people support it because they see people like me as mooches who “just want free stuff” and no one really wants to use taxpayer money. That’s what killed high-risk pools - they were so underfunded and so much of the cost was passed on that they were often useless to the people who needed them.
 
High risk pools very much have been tried, as has medicaid. And health-sharing ministries are very much a thing.
 
Freedom to associate across state lines hasn’t. Freedom has been tried.

This is the continuing tragedy of government interference makes things worse so we need more government.
Risk pools don’t work. Medicaid doesn’t work. Medicare is going broke. So we need more government.
 
JonNC said:
Well, make a choice. The choice in single payer is no choice.
Click to expand...
Of course there is a choice. You can pay for medical care from your own pocket. The only thing you can’t escape is paying taxes.
There is already a Catholic medishare, as well as others.
Click to expand...
If you want to trust your care to essentially the good will of others, then you can do that. These association can form. They just are not allowed to call themselves health insurance and participate in the health insurance marketplace.
 
“LeafByNiggle said:
Of course there is a choice. You can pay for medical care from your own pocket. The only thing you can’t escape is paying taxes.
Click to expand...
Unless your pocket has been picked of the money you earned, by your labor, you intended to use for that purpose. Now, if you’re talking about allowing people to choose using their own money, or even a medical voucher that you receive for that purpose, giving people such a choice, I’m good with that.
If you want to trust your care to essentially the good will of others, then you can do that.
Click to expand...
My opposition to government healthcare is, in large part, a significant lack of trust in the good will of people who have power. I want the choice to take my money and walk away. I want to trust that the people I associate with share the same morality, including a rejection of abortion and other things.
These association can form. They just are not allowed to call themselves health insurance and participate in the health insurance marketplace.
Click to expand...
No. They can’t. There were existing media shares that were grandfathered in. The formation of new ones is limited.
Further, the associations Paul is talking about would have the power to negotiate with insurance companies and other providers, with nationwide membership, much like corporations can do.
Click to expand...
 
JonNC said:
Now, if you’re talking about allowing people to choose using their own money, or even a medical voucher that you receive for that purpose, giving people such a choice, I’m good with that.
Click to expand...
That would also be a form of single-payer. When you get sick, the government could give you a voucher to cover any reasonable cost for your treatment. You could take that voucher to the doctor of your choice and get treated. But that is probably not what you meant, is it? You were thinking the voucher would only be enough to cover the premiums for the average person in reasonably good health. You were probably not thinking about a voucher that would be sufficient to get someone care who has a pre-existing condition and whom no one would willingly insure for the cost of that voucher.
My opposition to government healthcare is, in large part, a significant lack of trust in the good will of people who have power. I want the choice to take my money and walk away.
Click to expand...
If a single-payer law is written, it will not depending on trusting the government if they will decide to cover your kidney transplant. Those conditions will be spelled out in the law. However the medical sharing associations clearly state they are not insurances and do not guarantee coverage. They say they will “try” to cover your costs. And in most cases they do- largely because those associations do not have an especially high proportion of high-risk members.
I want to trust that the people I associate with share the same morality, including a rejection of abortion and other things.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of things we all want to see done right, such as the elimination of abortion. But is it right to hold hostage the health care of those we can provide for until we get what we want?
No. They can’t. There were existing media shares that were grandfathered in. The formation of new ones is limited.
Further, the associations Paul is talking about would have the power to negotiate with insurance companies and other providers, with nationwide membership, much like corporations can do.
Click to expand...
I think you are misrepresenting what these associations are trying to do. Can you please quote from the other side what defines these associations? Not your interpretation of what defines them, but the other side’s definition of what is supposedly not allowed. I really don’t know, so you would be helping to educate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top