The Morality of a Single Payer Health Care System

[JonNC]

But we’re not talking about that… We’re talking about a single-payer insurance provider that funds a still-private system. And non of the arguments I’ve seen your foe provide are very convincing. For example, SCOTUS obviously interprets the Commerce Clause differently than he does…

But, it isn’t private anymore, if the only source of payment comes from the government that makes the rules for what is or is not covered, determines how much a doctor will or will not get paid, what services will and will not be covered.
It is actually rather fascistic, in that it keeps the facade of a private system, but actually holds all of the funding and power.

 

[JonNC]

What statute are you talking about? A statute about pre-existing conditions is incompatible with a system of private insurance unless the coverage of those individuals is subsidized by the same government that issued the statute. That is why Obamacare is having such difficultly - because it has rules as if we had single payer but it tries to implement those rules by coercing/cajoling private insurance companies to adopt those rules. Without subsidies the insurance companies would not agree to take on people who they know for 100% certain are going to cost them money. And your large voluntary associations of free citizens have no incentive to invite into their group someone like that either.

No. I can work in a private market based system where supply and demand are not undermined by government.

 

[JonNC]

I cite the Catechism section 2240 that says it is the duty of citizens to pay their taxes.

I didn’t say anything about paying taxes. I was speaking of the government collection of them. If the government imposes the taxes, then you should pay them. Obey the law.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I didn’t say anything about paying taxes. I was speaking of the government collection of them. If the government imposes the taxes, then you should pay them. Obey the law.

So if the federal government imposes a tax and then provides health insurance with the proceeds, where is the theft?

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

But we’re not talking about that… We’re talking about a single-payer insurance provider that funds a still-private system. And non of the arguments I’ve seen your foe provide are very convincing. For example, SCOTUS obviously interprets the Commerce Clause differently than he does…

But, it isn’t private anymore, if the only source of payment comes from the government…

So Lockheed is really a government agency, eh?

We’ve already put this tired old dog down, Jon.

 

[JonNC]

If my money is used to pay for the insurance of others against my will. It is theft.

 

[Vonsalza]

If my money is used to pay for the insurance of others against my will. It is theft.

Looking at Medicaid and Medicare, you seem to be quite the victim!

Here is where your view become easily dismissed, I’m afraid.

 

[DarkLight]

If one maintains continuous health care insurance and does not leave the state or employer in which the insurance is issued or offered then one does not face exclusion. In either case, a choice was made – i.e., to leave the state of issuance or to change jobs. Or the person decided to roll the dice and not purchase health insurance. Some personal responsibility exists for those now faced with exclusionary clauses, no?

The obvious point here is that one doesn’t always get the choice to maintain jobs. If my employer decided that they were downsizing and my department gets laid off, I can’t force them to keep me on. There’s COBRA, but honestly I’ve seen the pricing on that and it’s unlikely I’d be able to afford that and also afford to pay rent and feed myself. And it can actually be very hard at the beginning to find a full-time job - took me quite some time because the trend is that you’re expected to support yourself on a couple of part-time jobs until you get enough experience.

And like I’ve mentioned, there’s the issue of people like me who had pre-existing conditions prior to age 18. I can’t be responsible for whether I had insurance before 18.

 

[JonNC]

Looking at Medicaid and Medicare, you seem to be quite the victim!

Here is where your view become easily dismissed, I’m afraid.

Victim? No. I leave the claims of victimhood to the left. Both are immoral. The only difference is with Medicare, I’m supposed to get my money back in healthcare after I retire.
Taking property and transferring it from one person against their will to another, regardless of who takes it, is theft.

You easily dismiss the view because you believe it is proper to redistribute wealth. I don’t dismiss your view. I just find authoritarian

 

[JonNC]

Regardless of the circumstances, you don’t have a right to someone else’s property, even if it is taken by the government at the point of a gun.

 

[DarkLight]

By that logic the entire united states government is immoral. All welfare programs, even things like medicaid or food stamps, are considered immoral. Public schools are immoral. I could go on - is that really what you think?

There has never in history been a society that successfully cared for the poor on charity alone. Even when the church took care of it - well, tithes were mandatory for many centuries and backed by the government.

 

[stinkcat_14]

If my money is used to pay for the insurance of others against my will. It is theft.

So, would you say that Medicare, medicaid, and the VA health system are all the result of theft?

Of course, there is nothing in Church teaching that remotely even suggest this.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Looking at Medicaid and Medicare, you seem to be quite the victim!

Here is where your view become easily dismissed, I’m afraid.

Victim? No. I leave the claims of victimhood to the left.

Oh, pardon me. I thought you literally just now claimed to be a victim of theft. Like immediately above.

Both are immoral. The only difference is with Medicare, I’m supposed to get my money back in healthcare after I retire.
Taking property and transferring it from one person against their will to another, regardless of who takes it, is theft.

Ah, so taxes are immoral if you don’t support everything supported by your taxes.

Interesting (crazy) perspective.

You easily dismiss the view because you believe it is proper to redistribute wealth. I don’t dismiss your view. I just find authoritarian

Run out of steam here?

 

[stinkcat_14]

Ah, so taxes are immoral if you don’t support everything supported by your taxes.

Interesting (crazy) perspective.

We have to remember, that it is just one person’s opinion. There is no Church teaching that comes close to saying that taxation and redistribution is theft.

 

[JonNC]

By that logic the entire united states government is immoral. All welfare programs, even things like medicaid or food stamps, are considered immoral. Public schools are immoral. I could go on - is that really what you think?

There has never in history been a society that successfully cared for the poor on charity alone. Even when the church took care of it - well, tithes were mandatory for many centuries and backed by the government.

No. Not all But the question then arises , how much of someone’s property is it okay to take? And if it is moral to do so, when does it become immoral? At what amount, and who actually gets to decide how much of someone’s money belongs to someone else?
I’ve never found a sufficient answer to this.

Public schools are not a wealth transfer program.

 

[JonNC]

Oh, pardon me. I thought you literally just now claimed to be a victim of theft. Like immediately above.

Actually, no. I won’t pardon you. Not my job. Again, it is progressives who seem to have that mindset. Maybe you were just projecting.

Ah, so taxes are immoral if you don’t support everything supported by your taxes.

Where did I say taxes are immoral? Please quote it, or do I have to pardon you again?
It is how they are used, for what purpose? When tax dollars are used for evil organizations such as Planned Parenthood, that is an immoral use.
When property is taken from one person and given to another, a wealth transfer, that is immoral.

Run out of steam here?

lol

 

[JonNC]

We have to remember, that it is just one person’s opinion. There is no Church teaching that comes close to saying that taxation and redistribution is theft.

Again, taxation has validity. Coerced wealth redistribution does not. Voluntary wealth redistribution is moral and should be strongly encouraged

 

[stinkcat_14]

stinkcat_14:

We have to remember, that it is just one person’s opinion. There is no Church teaching that comes close to saying that taxation and redistribution is theft.

Again, taxation has validity. Coerced wealth redistribution does not. Voluntary wealth redistribution is moral and should be strongly encouraged

Please cite some Church teaching claiming that redistributive government programs are immoral. You keep making the claim, but you never back it up with facts.

 

[JonNC]

I didn’t claim any church teaching. But scripture says you should not steal. Stealing is taking something that doesn’t belong to you.

Again, if wealth redistribution is moral, how much of my wealth should go to someone else? And why?
Who decides, and on what basis? Exactly how much is more, and exactly how much is immoral?
Tithing says 10%. Is more too much?

 

[Vonsalza]

Where did I say taxes are immoral? Please quote it, or do I have to pardon you again?

When property is taken from one person and given to another, a wealth transfer, that is immoral.

The prosecution rests, your honor.