The Morality of a Single Payer Health Care System

[Catholicos]

That’s not a moral argument. That is a practicality argument, and not a very good one at that. Moral arguments refer to a common moral code, like the Catechism if you are Catholic.

More practicality. I could just as easily ask when has a totally voluntary charity system ever managed to provide modern health care to all who need it? Or perhaps you want to admit that you don’t think everyone should receive the health care they need?

You need to better educate yourself then to Catholic social teaching because Socialism and many aspects of it are condemned by the Catholic Church. If you want to refer to the Catechism then read
**

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.207 Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market."208 Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

**

Are you going to tell us Obamacares HHS mandate requiring secular and religious organizations to facilitate health insurance coverage of sterilization, contraception, and drugs and devices that may cause abortions. not a moral argument? Was that just practicality, or did the Catholic Church and numerous organizations have to sue the Federal government in order that they didn’t violate their moral and religious beliefs??

Of course we won, there was no way Obama and his administration was going to get away with that, and just as recently as this week Trump settled that issue once and for all. The thing is, it never should have come to that point. The reason it did, its because the tempered, nuanced socialism built into a system like Obamacare is exactly what numerous Popes have warned against.

That is not to say aspects of capitalism is not evil, of course it is, especially usury, the Catechism states that. Catholics have a wealth of information thanks in part to Catholic teaching. We as Catholics can be above politics. We have faith and morality, the secular world does not.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You need to better educate yourself then to Catholic social teaching because Socialism and many aspects of it are condemned by the Catholic Church. If you want to refer to the Catechism then read
**

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.207 Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market."208 Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

I know this paragraph very well. I just quoted it four days ago in another thread. In that posting I dismantled the very argument you are presenting now.

Are you going to tell us Obamacares HHS mandate requiring secular and religious organizations to facilitate health insurance coverage of sterilization, contraception, and drugs and devices that may cause abortions. not a moral argument?

That is a moral argument, but it is an argument for a different question. This thread is about the morality of single payer health care systems. It is about the theory - not the practice of specific health care plans. The question I and others have been discussing is whether any single payer health plan can be moral. Obamacare is not even a single-payer plan, and it is just one plan. There are examples of various real single payer plans around the world. Some of them are better, some are worse. But the argument that all single payer health plans are immoral is groundless.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Listen, DarkLight, you can keep spinning your wheels on this all you like, but it won’t change anything. You’ve essentially been arguing that your situation is so hopeless and dire that only big government can solve it, as though if they’d just give you and everyone else in your situation something it would all work out.

It’s a historical fact that in America (where I assume you live) that as government regs and taxes go down, charity goes up. In fact, people used to help out each other with medical bills in their own communities. Some still do. And yes, it works much better than government because no matter what it looks like, feels like or what has been promised—government has ZERO incentive to care about you and give you the best health care possible. With the government taking over, you have NO choice. They decide, not you.

They can refuse to pay your medical bills and give you a euthansia pill instead.

 

[Catholicos]

I know this paragraph very well. I just quoted it four days ago in another thread. In that posting I dismantled the very argument you are presenting now.

That is a moral argument, but it is an argument for a different question. This thread is about the morality of single payer health care systems. It is about the theory - not the practice of specific health care plans. The question I and others have been discussing is whether any single payer health plan can be moral. Obamacare is not even a single-payer plan, and it is just one plan. There are examples of various real single payer plans around the world. Some of them are better, some are worse. But the argument that all single payer health plans are immoral is groundless.

Then why don’t you be specific and tell us of this single payer system that exists in the world that you believe is moral, and then we can go from there. What good is discussing a theory to anyone who needs sensible health care? It sounds wonderful to academia, but doesn’t amount to any practical use to anyone that needs heath care.

You should probably be more specific with how you understand single payer because it’s obvious you believe there are some that are moral. If in theory you believe these moral single payer systems exists, then fine, the burden is on you to explain how and why it conforms to Catholic social teaching. If you dismantled the argument in another thread, then you should have no problem with explaining just how Catholic a single payer system can be.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Then why don’t you be specific and tell us of this single payer system that exists in the world that you believe is moral, and then we can go from there. What good is discussing a theory to anyone who needs sensible health care? It sounds wonderful to academia, but doesn’t amount to any practical use to anyone that needs heath care.

You should probably be more specific with how you understand single payer because it’s obvious you believe there are some that are moral. If in theory you believe these moral single payer systems exists, then fine, the burden is on you to explain how and why it conforms to Catholic social teaching. If you dismantled the argument in another thread, then you should have no problem with explaining just how Catholic a single payer system can be.

Medicare is single payer and people support it. Even people who claim to be in favor of small government. So the question is, if Medicare is appropriate and consistent with Church teaching, then why wouldn’t medicare for all be consistent with Church teaching. Nobody has been able to explain that. The best you can get is that they are in favor of Medicare for some because they are greedy.

 

[Melchior_1]

I wasn’t going to post in this thread . But I I wanted to share:

To feed the hungry.
To give water to the thirsty.
To clothe the naked.
To shelter the homeless.
To visit the sick.
To visit the imprisoned, or ransom the captive.[19]
To bury the dead.

Although having everyone contribute to a system which looks after people’s healthcare isn’t in there, I think that the general principles of these concepts is applicable.

After all, “the least of my brothers”, right?

 

[Catholicos]

Medicare is single payer and people support it. Even people who claim to be in favor of small government. So the question is, if Medicare is appropriate and consistent with Church teaching, then why wouldn’t medicare for all be consistent with Church teaching. Nobody has been able to explain that. The best you can get is that they are in favor of Medicare for some because they are greedy.

Of course medicare is single payer so is medicaid , but where did you get the idea that it’s consistent with Church teaching and it’s endorsed by the Catholic Church? Where do you think Planned Parenthood gets some of its funding? Can you see some of the moral problems yet? Now lets ignore all this practice and just focus on the theory with regards to morality. Where do you even begin?

This may help you

 

[phil19034]

JonNC:

Source, please, that this is true of Catholic or other health share plans. Are you telling us that you’ve been turned down by these plans?

And if it is true, maybe that would change if the cap on the number of these types of plans was lifted.

It’s on their websites. It’s not exactly that I’d be turned down, but that since I have preexisting conditions those wouldn’t be covered (or there’s a long waiting period). So solidarity, for example, excludes any condition I’ve had treatment for in the 2 years prior to joining, for the first year. The next 2 years have expense caps. Curo excludes preexisting conditions and mental health.

I’m no where near being an expert in this, but unfortunately, I think some of that is because Health Shares require large pools of people to cover such things. If Health Shares were encouraged, instead of discouraged or ignored, perhaps there would be a way to handle that?

Perhaps good tax exemptions for donations to a Health Share used to cover people we existing conditions, etc?

However, Heath Shares currently will tell you that they are not currently meant for everyone, because they are not insurance. They are designed for the healthy. If a young, healthy person joins one, and also puts money into a HSA; they could have pretty good coverage when they are older.

So Health Shares are definitely something that I would recommend to young adults.

God Bless

 

[b_ulmen]

Doing these works should be voluntary NOT mandatory. Mandatory takes the compassion and love out of the work. Govt forced “charity” turns an act of love into an impersonal spiritually useless function.

 

[SuperLuigi]

If you think more government is the answer, you’ll end up doing none of those very well at all.

 

[Catholicos]

Doing these works should be voluntary NOT mandatory. Mandatory takes the compassion and love out of the work. Govt forced “charity” turns an act of love into an impersonal spiritually useless function.

This is very well said, and at the heart of the Catholic argument when the hint of morality even comes up in what seems a purely political issue.
This is what’s overlooked once the secular world hears the words God and religion involved in any charity that would help government run systems.

What we have today are 2 separate systems. The single payer, socialist form in medicare and medicaid for the elderly. And the capitalist style, profit driven one for the rest of the population. Is anyone shocked that costs can’t come down when these 2 forces are in control of almost 1/5th of the GDP?..

I think we can offer something better, but if the Church has a role where it’s completely subordinate in it’s opinions and ideas, the govnt no matter what form it takes is left to its own to decide, We the molecules of this large ,vast organsm, will just have to go along for the ride.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Doing these works should be voluntary NOT mandatory. Mandatory takes the compassion and love out of the work. Govt forced “charity” turns an act of love into an impersonal spiritually useless function.

Better to have health care without love and compassion than to have well wishes and no health care. There are still plenty of opportunities for people to be charitable. No one said government funded health care was supposed to be a replacement for charity, or that it had to be an act of love.

Consider education. In theory this could all be handled by charity. Teachers could donate their time and teach without pay. Yet we do pay them. So does that take all the love out of the work of teaching? Of course not.

What we have today are 2 separate systems. The single payer, socialist form in medicare and medicaid for the elderly. And the capitalist style, profit driven one for the rest of the population. Is anyone shocked that costs can’t come down when these 2 forces are in control of almost 1/5th of the GDP?..

I think we can offer something better, but if the Church has a role where it’s completely subordinate in it’s opinions and ideas, the govnt no matter what form it takes is left to its own to decide, We the molecules of this large ,vast organsm, will just have to go along for the ride.

You asked me to provide a concrete example of a good successful and moral single payer system. Well, I could ask you the same thing about your proposal that we can offer something better. You are asking us to forego a single payer system that has had some measure of success in some places in favor of a system that has never existed in all of history - just on speculation that it will work out better. And I suppose that system is charity?

Of course medicare is single payer so is medicaid , but where did you get the idea that it’s consistent with Church teaching and it’s endorsed by the Catholic Church? Where do you think Planned Parenthood gets some of its funding? Can you see some of the moral problems yet? Now lets ignore all this practice and just focus on the theory with regards to morality. Where do you even begin?

Something does not have to be “endorsed by the Church” to be “not immoral.” If you think the Church has condemned Social Security then the burden is on you to show such condemnation from the Church. Everything is consistent with Church teaching unless it is specifically declared inconsistent.

The Church does not condemn Social Security just because a tiny fraction of that money gets to Planned Parenthood. Currently most retired priests are being cared for by a combination of pension benefits and Social Security. Don’t you think it odd that most priests draw benefits from a system you say is immoral?

 

[JonNC]

There is ZERO evidence that individual charity alone can provide for all the medical needs in America. We have only the speculative promise from you that if taxes go down, charitable giving will go up enough to meet the need. Show the numbers if you think that wild assertion is true.

There is zero evidence that the general government can control its spending. There is zero evidence that adding trillions to their entitlement schemes will make them any better at it.
They have run up a budget debt of $20 trillion. They have run up unfunded liabilities in excess of $125 trillion. The combined total will soon be over $150 trillion.
They are no longer spending our children’s money, they are spending our great grandchildren’s money.
Talk about immoral!

And some want to trust all healthcare money to the federal government?

 

[phil19034]

Better to have health care without love and compassion than to have well wishes and no health care. There are still plenty of opportunities for people to be charitable. No one said government funded health care was supposed to be a replacement for charity, or that it had to be an act of love.

I don’t know about you, but I hate going to a doctor or health care practice that is compassionless. When doctors, nurses, & medical technicians do their job simply for money, without compassion and charity, they make terrible medical practitioners. So no, I don’t want a health care system that lacks compassion and charity.

Consider education. In theory this could all be handled by charity. Teachers could donate their time and teach without pay. Yet we do pay them. So does that take all the love out of the work of teaching? Of course not.

The Catholic Church had schools with free teachers for years (aka religious sisters and priests) and that system worked very well until the teaching orders decided to stop teaching. It’s a system that many of us would like return, and there are a few newer orders of nuns who are teaching for free in poor areas. This is something I pray will expand so that one day, we can have a large crew of religious sisters teaching again.

Something does not have to be “endorsed by the Church” to be “not immoral.” If you think the Church has condemned Social Security then the burden is on you to show such condemnation from the Church. Everything is consistent with Church teaching unless it is specifically declared inconsistent.

The Church does not condemn Social Security just because a tiny fraction of that money gets to Planned Parenthood. Currently most retired priests are being cared for by a combination of pension benefits and Social Security. Don’t you think it odd that most priests draw benefits from a system you say is immoral?

Social Security isn’t really a good example because that system is broken. I’m 40 years old now, and I doubt I will be able to receive Social Security when I retire. And if I do, it will not have the same value it does today.

History has shown in every single nation that socialism and Communism eventually goes bankrupt. There only 5 communist nations left. They are either poor or have adopted more & more capitalism.

Socialism is not the answer. If you are against capitalism, then you should really look into Distributism instead or socialism. Distributism - Wikipedia

BTW - When Social Security was introduced in the United States, Dorthy Day was a big opponent of it because she recognized the socialism right away.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I don’t know about you, but I hate going to a doctor or health care practice that is compassionless. When doctors, nurses, & medical technicians do their job simply for money, without compassion and charity, they make terrible medical practitioners. So no, I don’t want a health care system that lacks compassion and charity.

Whether the doctor is paid from charitable donations or through a government program will not make the doctor any more or less compassionate. But as I said, compassionless care is better than no care at all.

The Catholic Church had schools with free teachers for years (aka religious sisters and priests) and that system worked very well until the teaching orders decided to stop teaching.

The nuns were low-paid, but they were paid. But you could never get enough volunteers to teach more than tiny fraction of the population, so don’t hold that up as a general solution to all educational needs any more than charitable giving is a solution for all health care needs.

Social Security isn’t really a good example because that system is broken.

We were talking about whether it is moral - not about whether it is financially sound.

History has shown in every single nation that socialism and Communism eventually goes bankrupt.

No one is supporting communism or socialism. I explicitly deny that Social Security is socialism in the sense used by the Catechism.

Socialism is not the answer. If you are against capitalism, then you should really look into Distributism instead or socialism. Distributism - Wikipedia

I’m glad you brought up Distributism because it illustrates a point I needed to make. I proposed that in theory, single payer health insurance is moral. I was challenged by another poster to give an example of a moral and successful implementation of single payer health insurance. The idea, I guess, is that if I can’t point to an example of the thing I say could be good, my statement about the theory of single payer is meaningless. Well, here we have Distributism - a nice theory that has been proposed, but never implemented by any modern society. So no one can point to such a system and say “see, it works!” In fact there is every reason to believe that Distributism, while very nice in theory, has to path to implementation and many ways to be derailed.

 

[Catholicos]

The Church does not condemn Social Security just because a tiny fraction of that money gets to Planned Parenthood. Currently most retired priests are being cared for by a combination of pension benefits and Social Security. Don’t you think it odd that most priests draw benefits from a system you say is immoral?

I’ll address your other statement later. I never mentioned Soc Security just medicare/medicaid, but while we’re on Social Security I’ll address something else not even related to the planned parenthood/birth control issue. I won’t say whether it’s even moral or not, because as you know with entitlements the decision is not ours, nor are our Catholic morality taken into consideration.

Lets say you’re in your mid/early 50’s, you married young, you and your spouse paid into Soc Sec your entire life. Your spouse suddenly dies. What about the benefits your spouse paid into that he/she never collected.?? Do you believe you’re entitled to it? If your answer is NO, then why should you be entitled to any of his/her property, even if was solely his/hers. ie. a car, personal property

If your answer is YES, you are entitled to all that money he/she paid into the system, then the way Soc Sec works now is you would not be able to remarry before age 60, or you lose all your deceased spouses benefits. Do you think that’s moral? Did you have any personal choice or free will even in something you thought you owned like Soc Sec benefits?

---

This is the theory or theoretical problems of socialist based systems you were asking . Neither I nor the Catholic Church is ignoring how these systems benefit individuals. The part that is problematic from the Catholic social teaching aspect, is the private ownership, and the free will the individual has in choosing what morally belongs to the person. The rules can be changed sure, but those changes whether good or bad are not always based on justice, or any moral law. Those rules are changed by the state you and even the Church is subordinate to on this type of economic system.

There are many many retired widows/widowers who are going to get a nasty surprise when they realize the spouse who’s earning were lower will lose their ENTIRE Soc Sec benefit if that lower earning spouse dies first, whether they remarry or not. Which raises another moral question: Why get married? What’s the difference if the widow who loses the benefits of his/her deceased spouse if the same result would have happened if they just lived as a couple and were unmarried?

I’ll go into this other ‘theory’ later. That theory is this: Soc Security though beneficial has harmed the family structure. I haven’t thought this one through, it’s just a theory i’ve heard

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The Church does not condemn Social Security just because a tiny fraction of that money gets to Planned Parenthood. Currently most retired priests are being cared for by a combination of pension benefits and Social Security. Don’t you think it odd that most priests draw benefits from a system you say is immoral?

I’ll address your other statement later. I never mentioned Soc Security just medicare/medicaid

OK, I claim Medicare and Medicaid are moral too.

Lets say you’re in your mid/early 50’s, you married young, you and your spouse paid into Soc Sec your entire life. Your spouse suddenly dies. What about the benefits your spouse paid into that he/she never collected.?? Do you believe you’re entitled to it? If your answer is NO, then why should you be entitled to any of his/her property, even if was solely his/hers. ie. a car, personal property

Because taxes (that’s what they are) are not like a deposit into a personal account. Once the taxes are collected, they are no longer yours in the same way your car is yours. As for your yes/no question, I would say it is not a matter of entitlement either pro or con. It is a matter of what the law says. If the law says the spouse should get the benefits, then so be it. If not, then so be it again.

If your answer is YES, you are entitled to all that money he/she paid into the system, then the way Soc Sec works now is you would not be able to remarry before age 60, or you lose all your deceased spouses benefits. Do you think that’s moral?

If that’s the way the law reads, then yes.

Did you have any personal choice or free will even in something you thought you owned like Soc Sec benefits?

No because I never did think I owned it.

The part that is problematic from the Catholic social teaching aspect, is the private ownership, and the free will the individual has in choosing what morally belongs to the person. The rules can be changed sure, but those changes whether good or bad are not always based on justice, or any moral law. Those rules are changed by the state you and even the Church is subordinate to on this type of economic system.

A person can be mistaken about what he thinks morally belongs to him.

There are many many retired widows/widowers who are going to get a nasty surprise when they realize the spouse who’s earning were lower will lose their ENTIRE Soc Sec benefit if that lower earning spouse dies first, whether they remarry or not. Which raises another moral question: Why get married?

Well, certainly not for SS benefits! But whenever a lower earning widow loses benefits it is because she is getting even more benefits from her spouse’s account. If they didn’t get married she would be stuck with only her lower benefits and non of the benefits of the partner who died.

 

[SuperLuigi]

This is the theory or theoretical problems of socialist based systems you were asking . Neither I nor the Catholic Church is ignoring how these systems benefit individuals. The part that is problematic from the Catholic social teaching aspect, is the private ownership, and the free will the individual has in choosing what morally belongs to the person. The rules can be changed sure, but those changes whether good or bad are not always based on justice, or any moral law. Those rules are changed by the state you and even the Church is subordinate to on this type of economic system.

Thatcher said it best: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money”.

You can have all of the Facebook “friends” and sad feelings of injustice all you like. In the end it won’t give you healthcare or pay the bills.

 

[phil19034]

Which raises another moral question: Why get married? What’s the difference if the widow who loses the benefits of his/her deceased spouse if the same result would have happened if they just lived as a couple and were unmarried?

I’ll go into this other ‘theory’ later. That theory is this: S**oc Security though beneficial has harmed the family structure**. I haven’t thought this one through, it’s just a theory i’ve heard

I don’t agree that Social Security has harmed the family structure. It’s kind of family neutral. But it doesn’t really strengthen it either.

 

[Catholicos]

Thatcher said it best: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money”.

You can have all of the Facebook “friends” and sad feelings of injustice all you like. In the end it won’t give you healthcare or pay the bills.

That’s usually how it ends. America has had a long fascination with the European and Canadian health care systems . It’s only recently you’re witnessing the slow and eventual demise of the EU machine. Whether it be Cuba, Venezuela, Germany, Greece, pick any nation, the money leaves when the govt believes it knows what’s better for the individual, than the individual.