The Morality of a Single Payer Health Care System

[Theo520]

Worth noting that universal healthcare need not be structured as “single-payer” though it may well operate that way for the most needy.

A big problem with this debate is that no one really specifies what they are talking, so each side picks and chooses what they think the other side is really saying.

Is single payer about govt owned delivery, or just govt owned insurance.?

If the govt controls the pricing, does that make private delivery defacto employees?

 

[Vonsalza]

I think it would be nice if you reposted this every 10-15 replies, just to keep everyone on track.

 

[Vonsalza]

If the govt controls the pricing, does that make private delivery defacto employees?

That’s a fair question. Are all the grocers that accept food stamps as well as the arms companies that sell rifles to the gov. really government run ventures?

 

[Theo520]

That’s a fair question. Are all the grocers that accept food stamps as well as the arms companies that sell rifles to the gov. really government run ventures?

Not a valid comparison, unless virtually all their revenue was coming from food stamps.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

That’s a fair question. Are all the grocers that accept food stamps as well as the arms companies that sell rifles to the gov. really government run ventures?

Not a valid comparison, unless virtually all their revenue was coming from food stamps.

For most of your defense contractors, this is exactly the case (selling to just the gov.).

 

[Theo520]

For most of your defense contractors, this is exactly the case (selling to just the gov.).

Do you find them cost effective in their delivery of pricing and services?

I know they must comply with increased regulations because the Feds are their only customer.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

For most of your defense contractors, this is exactly the case (selling to just the gov.).

Do you find them cost effective in their delivery of pricing and services?

I know they must comply with increased regulations because the Feds are their only customer.

I’m sure that depends on how you measure it and what you choose to compare your measurements to.

But it still pertains to your previous question - Are these guys defacto government employees?

…and I’ll add; if so, should that change? Or is this one of many classic economic scenarios where privatization yields unacceptable consequences?

 

[Theo520]

I’m sure that depends on how you measure it and what you choose to compare your measurements to.

But it still pertains to your previous question - Are these guys defacto government employees?

…and I’ll add; if so, should that change? Or is this one of many classic economic scenarios where privatization yields unacceptable consequences?

I was being too subtle.

I believe Govt purchasing is known to be expensive and exclusionary (they are related).

Also, innovation is not their strong point. Innovation is essential in reducing costs.

 

[o_mlly]

People should voice their opinion. But that voicing of their opinion need not take the form of “I’m going to sit here and hold my breath until I get my way!”

Since single payer is not the law of the land, I agree. Restated, those who advocate a change to the system to single payer without an abortion exclusion, say, “I’m going to allow additional murders in order to get my way!”

In Nevada, prostitution is legal. Legislation in Nevada is proposed for a single payer health insurance scheme funded by state taxes. The brothel operators’ lobby succeed in their bogus claim that brothel services provide for the health and safety of the Nevada citizens. As a result, brothel services are a covered health expense under the proposed legislation. How does the Catholic Nevadan vote on this immoral legislation?

Substitute “U.S.” for “Nevada” and “abortion” for “brothel services” and explain the difference.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

People should voice their opinion. But that voicing of their opinion need not take the form of “I’m going to sit here and hold my breath until I get my way!”

Since single payer is not the law of the land, I agree. Restated, those who advocate a change to the system to single payer without an abortion exclusion, say, “I’m going to allow additional murders in order to get my way!”

In Nevada, prostitution is legal. Legislation in Nevada is proposed for a single payer health insurance scheme funded by state taxes. The brothel operators’ lobby succeed in their bogus claim that brothel services provide for the health and safety of the Nevada citizens. As a result, brothel services are a covered health expense under the proposed legislation. How does the Catholic Nevadan vote on this immoral legislation?

Substitute “U.S.” for “Nevada” and “abortion” for “brothel services” and explain the difference.

There is no difference. The brothel operators are wrong about their services being health services and those who say abortion is a health service are wrong.

 

[JonNC]

There is no difference. The brothel operators are wrong about their services being health services and those who say abortion is a health service are wrong.

Do you actually have any doubt that abortion would be included in any single payer scheme? After all, it would most likely occur under Democrats, who are 100% committed to abortion on demand. And while Republicans seem to lack the integrity to end ACA, it seems unlikely they would pass a single payer plan, particularly with an abortion component.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

I’m sure that depends on how you measure it and what you choose to compare your measurements to.

But it still pertains to your previous question - Are these guys defacto government employees?

…and I’ll add; if so, should that change? Or is this one of many classic economic scenarios where privatization yields unacceptable consequences?

I was being too subtle.

I believe Govt purchasing is known to be expensive and exclusionary (they are related).

Also, innovation is not their strong point. Innovation is essential in reducing costs.

Again, I think that depends on how you measure “innovation” and what you choose to compare it to.

As one example, I think the government was responsible for a good deal of innovation in putting a man on the moon. Or developing nuclear energy. Or a myriad of other technological innovations.

As such, when I encounter anyone who vaguely asserts “The gub’mint is bad and everthang they dew is bad!”, I know immediately that I’m talking to a person whose views aren’t strictly grounded in reason. It’s a well-established fact for anyone who bothered to take a few econ electives in college that private enterprise cannot suitably solve all problems.

Most Americans seem to think providing insurance coverage for all Americans happens to be one of those things. I am a member of the growing group, as I’m sure you could tell.

 

[Theo520]

If you hold up the Moon program and your shinning example of how great the govt is, it tells me much, about your lack of knowledge on how the govt purchasing works and where they spend the vast majority of their budgets. And historical timelines.

The exception is NASA, on some programs, they are not the rule.

I also think you are relying heavily on R&D spend for developing new technology. It’s an area where the feds do need to be a funder, we need more basic R&D in Thorium MSR nuclear, but the feds don’t fund much of that stuff anymore with the TRILLIONS they spend.

The money our Feds lost playing venture capital with Solyndra et al would have knocked new tech in nuclear out of the ball park, if it had been ‘invested’ there.

 

[Vonsalza]

If you hold up the Moon program and your shinning example of how great the govt is…

Oh lordy, stop right there. The moon is just an easy example that everyone can know and understand. Interstates, civil aviation, flood control, the pre-Reagan US power grid, the polio vaccine… All these things can be laid largely at the feet of government. And there are oceans of other examples. I don’t have one “shining example”, I’ve got scores. The moon landing is just easy…

The money our Feds lost playing venture capital with Solyndra

Totally agree. Money completely wasted. Like the US funding of Hughes’ “Spruce Goose”. Civil aviation was absolutely launched by the government, but that was a total dud for sure.

 

[Theo520]

Now you are projecting that we think everything the govt touches is bad, you are false.

I think Govt regulation in many areas has been fantastic for our country.

Roads and power are obviously fantastic when you don’t have them, but even with roads you can’t say the Govt is efficient in use of money.

Stop projecting things on us that we haven’t’ said.

 

[Vonsalza]

Now you are projecting that we think everything the govt touches is bad, you are false.

I think Govt regulation in many areas has been fantastic for our country.

Roads and power are obviously fantastic when you don’t have them, but even with roads you can’t say the Govt is efficient in use of money.

Stop projecting things on us that we haven’t’ said.

I’ve done no such thing, and I think you misunderstood.

I was saying that the Spruce Goose was a total “Solyndra” in it’s time. Now, the birth of civil aviation on-the-whole is absolutely attributable to government spending (not just regulation…), but that one specific project was a total cash-burner.

I was actually kinda agreeing with you. Your “gun-sight” probably blocked the view of that.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

There is no difference. The brothel operators are wrong about their services being health services and those who say abortion is a health service are wrong.

Do you actually have any doubt that abortion would be included in any single payer scheme? After all, it would most likely occur under Democrats, who are 100% committed to abortion on demand. And while Republicans seem to lack the integrity to end ACA, it seems unlikely they would pass a single payer plan, particularly with an abortion component.

The discussion I thought was about the morality of single payer insurance - not about a specific implementation. However we can also discuss whether a program overall is moral to support even if it includes an immoral component, which is where I think you are leading. In that case I would say it depends on the extent of the immoral component.

 

[Theo520]

I was saying that the Spruce Goose was a total “Solyndra” in it’s time. Now, the birth of civil aviation on-the-whole is absolutely attributable to government spending (not just regulation…), but that one specific project was a total cash-burner.

I was actually kinda agreeing with you. Your “gun-sight” probably blocked the view of that.

Sorry, my coffee has yet to kick in. Oddly it seems to mellow me instead of making me agitated.

I wouldn’t compare Solyndra to the Spruce Goose.

Solyndra was a turd primarily because the feds broke their own rules put in place to prevent exactly what happened. I still don’t like the Govt funding a going concern that can be funded by the market if it even deserves funding, but at minimum there must be protections for the investment.

Spruce Goose was another beast entirely. Howard had a record of innovation and the plane was designed to meet a war time need using the available resources. It might have been a huge plus if it was developed in the 30’s when the war was starting rather than when it was finished. It’s first flight was in 1947. After the war there was no problem obtaining steel and aluminum for plane construction.

 

[JonNC]

The discussion I thought was about the morality of single payer insurance - not about a specific implementation. However we can also discuss whether a program overall is moral to support even if it includes an immoral component, which is where I think you are leading. In that case I would say it depends on the extent of the immoral component.

Well, you know that I believe the very nature of government imposed single payer is immoral because it confiscates individual liberty and turns it into a government power, but yes, for the sake of discussion, the components also must be evaluated, starting with both what kinds of elective procedures will be paid for through tax dollars, and what requirements will be on providers to perform them.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The discussion I thought was about the morality of single payer insurance - not about a specific implementation. However we can also discuss whether a program overall is moral to support even if it includes an immoral component, which is where I think you are leading. In that case I would say it depends on the extent of the immoral component.

Well, you know that I believe the very nature of government imposed single payer is immoral because it confiscates individual liberty and turns it into a government power, but yes, for the sake of discussion, the components also must be evaluated, starting with both what kinds of elective procedures will be paid for through tax dollars, and what requirements will be on providers to perform them.

You make no mention of the extent of the immoral component. Does it matter? Does a system spends 99% of its money on good things and 1% of its money on immoral things have to be considered an immoral system? That’s what it would be if health care also provided abortion services.

Remember, this is just a side-debate, since the main question of whether any single-payer system must cover abortion services I have not conceded.