Is that 1% okay even though it takes human life? I know you think abortion is immoral, so I am asking in a general sense. Is it a fair trade off?
Because the government is involved.
It’s subsidized by the other 2/3 you talk about later in your comments. There is no such thing as a free lunch, no matter how badly you want it or FEEL for it.
I don’t know. It’s not “okay”, but does it make the whole system immoral?
Respectfully, that’s so vague as to be almost unanswerable, I’m afraid. How is the government involved in a situation where the cost of treating chronic illness or serious acute injury simply costs more than many can afford? As such, they go into arrears on their payments towards an impossible debt and bankruptcy becomes the only real solution.Vonsalza:
Because the government is involved.
Oh I’m well aware. As a working man that’s easily in the top 10% of American household incomes, I do a good portion of the subsidizing. Just like I subsidize the benefits of national defense, public roads and public schools for the poor people that are are financially unable to pay “their fair share”.Vonsalza:
It’s subsidized by the other 2/3 you talk about later in your comments. There is no such thing as a free lunch, no matter how badly you want it or FEEL for it.
I agree. The right to life is a greater good than the right to health insurance. Life saving health care is already guaranteed through EMTALA.
Here’s the thing…you can overpay your taxes at any time. So instead of using the force of government to make people do something they don’t want to do or have the government run something it isn’t capable of running, just make more of a sacrifice on your end. If you’re happy to do it, then it should be automatic.
Tort law and mandates.
Heathcare seems like it fits quite nicely under the commerce clause of the US constitution. Incredible that those guys were smart enough for foresee the need to address natural monopolies that wouldn’t arise until centuries after they were dead.Vonsalza:
national defense is stated in the constitution as a proper role of government…
Some might be… The local highschool in my rural area beats out most of the private schools in my state in test scores (my wife works for the school system). But you’d agree, I’m sure, that if the public school was eliminated, you’d still fund the vouchers for these poor students to attend quasi-private schools. As such, your objection here is null.
The only way you could fully privatize roads would be to toll literally every road. So a monopoly will amass that will charge you $10 every time you drive to work or you’d have the leave for your 20-minute commute roughly 40 minutes early so you could stop at every single toll along the way.
The VA system is a state-owed and state-run system. Single-payer systems like the Canadian model are not. Your comparison here is wrong. But I’m sure you’re not particularly willing to see the difference; like many here (lookin’ at you, Jon).
Yes. From the CCC:
Would you then conclude that the US Military is an immoral system because a component of it has, on occasion, deliberately destroyed an innocent human being, as in the Mỹ Lai Massacre?LeafByNiggle:
Yes. From the CCC:
2258 … God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being
The military found Calley guilty of the premeditated murder of more than 20 Vietnamese civilians. Would the abortionist under a single payer health plan that covered abortions be tried and convicted of murder?
You didn’t answer my question. Does the fact that a system has an immoral component make that an immoral system?LeafByNiggle:
The military found Calley guilty of the premeditated murder of more than 20 Vietnamese civilians. Would the abortionist under a single payer health plan that covered abortions be tried and convicted of murder?
I believe I did. The US Military is not an immoral institution because outlaw members commit immoral acts.Would you then conclude that the US Military is an immoral system …
LeafByNiggle:
Yet the US Military enabled these outlaw members to commit immoral acts, just like some health care system might enable abortion doctors to get reimbursed. Some of those, like Calley, were convicted. I’m sure some were not. But regardless of whether they were convicted, the system enabled these men to do what they could not have done without that system. It enabled evil acts. Whether it punished the guilty afterwords does not change the fact that it enabled these acts. Now of course these acts are very much the exception. Most of what the US Military enables are good deeds. And so we keep the overall systems while trying to improve it by prosecuting those who do evil by means of that system. Might it also be moral to provide health care while at the same time work to eliminate abortion funding?LeafByNiggle:
I believe I did. The US Military is not an immoral institution because outlaw members commit immoral acts.Would you then conclude that the US Military is an immoral system …
LeafByNiggle:
Probably not.
Only in a perversion of the original intent of the commerce clause, which was to give the congress power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, between states, and with Indian tribes, not between individual citizens There is no mention of confiscation of tax dollars for the purpose of exercising government power over an individual’s liberty to access healthcare.
Just plane false. Single payer is authoritarian government control over healthcare. If you take my money and tell me what healthcare I am permitted and prohibited access to, when I may access it, that is government control. The very term single payer" means I am no longer the doctor’s customer. The government is the customer. The patient has no say. The doctor WILL BE coerced into serving at the whim of government dictate, at a fee set by government.
The logic above is faulty. Using the same reasoning, would conclude that God is immoral for we could do no evil act without His enabling gift of free will.
OK, given that a health care plan that did abortions is immoral, the OP asks about single-payer in general. Specifically, the question addressed whether any single-payer system was necessarily Socialism, and immoral for that reason. Depending on how it is structured, I would say not necessarily.LeafByNiggle:
The logic above is faulty. Using the same reasoning, would conclude that God is immoral for we could do no evil act without His enabling gift of free will.
The critical difference which the logic above ignores is that the US military did not, does not, nor ever will endorse murder. Single payer that does not exclude abortion does.
The OP’s asks what does the Catholic church teach about the morality (not the Constitutionality, legality or practicality) of single payer system. I posted an excerpt from the USCCB’s letter (http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...raham-Letter-multiple-chairman-2017-09-21.pdf) to the senate affirming that the bishops teach it is “essential” that any revision to our health care legislation insure “that no federal funds are used for abortion or go to plans that cover it.” Do you have a statement from a bishop(s) of the Catholic church that supports your contradicting opinion?