The Morality of a Single Payer Health Care System

[Catholicos]

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.

I haven’t looked at it in depth, but at this point, but that’s how I see it thus far.

 

[Catholicos]

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.

Now ya got it, just like medicare and medicaid that was also taxed and not deposited freely are no longer yours , or ever was

 

[MonteRCMS]

Check out a system they have in Texas, that competes with Social Security.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba514

The Galveston County Plan.

Read up on it.

It is managed so much better than Social Security, that its benefit is about THREE TIMES HIGHER than Social Security.

 

[MonteRCMS]

The Catholic Church in the USA "used to " run a substantial hospital program.

I think the problem is that Federal Mandates made it impossible.

 

[MonteRCMS]

If the central insurance program works, then wonderful.

But, the problem is that there is NO … ZERO … assurance of success.

If it fails or if its prior success fades away … if the system starts to falter … then we are totally screwed … we than have no recourse.

However, if there are competing systems, then we have the freedom to choose.

 

[Catholicos]

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

I don’t even think I was a member when you stated this, but I think this is where you err. Soc Security however way you want to view it, whether by economic definition or by the Catechism is even closer to pure Socialism than the medicare/medicade system. The Catechism as well as Church teaching does not endorse Socialism in either how its applied whether in theory or in practice, As I’ve stated before , it condemns it based on moral principle. Because of how loosely the definition of Socialism is used, many will try to reason Catholicism applies Socialist principles in how it operates. Nothing could be further from the truth because the 2 are mutually exclusive. Morality is not what drives or is the foundation of Socialism, nor Capitalism. Whether it be hospitals, schools, housing, the Catholic ways are bound by moral principles in what that organization can and cannot do.

We who disagree with how Soc Security and healthcare is run doesn’t mean we reject it outright. We just believe how it’s run is not the most efficient. With regards to the priests who use the Soc Security system. He did pay into it, as far as I know they still have to pay SECA taxes, so yeah, he’s entitled to it at retirement. Doesn’t mean its an endorsement any more than me paying for a toll to maintain a bridge i have to cross. It’s a tax like you said and the law. I don’t pay the toll, I don’t use the bridge, I don’t work for 10 years I don’t collect the benefits.

You asked then what’s our solution. That’s a fair question since not offering a solution doesn’t do anyone much good, I’ll have to get back to that later, and maybe use a real life example with my Parish.

 

[DarkLight]

If the central insurance program works, then wonderful.

But, the problem is that there is NO … ZERO … assurance of success.

If it fails or if its prior success fades away … if the system starts to falter … then we are totally screwed … we than have no recourse.

However, if there are competing systems, then we have the freedom to choose.

I think this is really where some of us have issues. What if there already isn’t a competing system for us to choose?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

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

I don’t even think I was a member when you stated this, but I think this is where you err. Soc Security however way you want to view it, whether by economic definition or by the Catechism is even closer to pure Socialism than the medicare/medicade system. The Catechism as well as Church teaching does not endorse Socialism in either how its applied whether in theory or in practice.

Is that what you require from the Church? An explicit endorsement? So anything that is not explicitly endorsed must be immoral? That is not reasonable.

The reasonable question to ask is whether the Church has condemned or rejected what Social Security is. And I don’t concede that it is Socialism, so I will not call it that. But more important to the Catechism is not what you call it but what features it has. Look again at the paragraph you and I have both quoted, 2425, from which I now quote:

The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.”

Clearly what the Church is rejecting are totalitarian and atheistic ideologies, which just happen to be associated with systems that are called “communism” or “socialism” in modern times. If you have a system that does not have these ideologies, it is not rejected by this paragraph, even if it is similar to socialism is some other respect.

So the question becomes, does Social Security embody an atheistic ideology? Clearly not. Nothing in the theory or the practice of Social Security denies the existence of God. Then how about a totalitarian ideology? The definition of totalitarian is:

relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.

Social Security is centralized, but it is not dictatorial in that it does not command anything other than that you pay your taxes into it. If that is dictatorial, then so is every other system that forcibly collects taxes. And how about requiring complete subservience to the state? Again the answer is no. Social Security does not take away any of your freedoms, except the freedom to hold on to that portion of your earnings that goes to the Social Security tax. And the system is not run for the good of the state, but for the good of the people. So Social Security fails in several ways to be a totalitarian ideology. Therefore it is not rejected by 2425.

 

[Vonsalza]

You are using the same argument that progressives in the Church make regarding same gender marriage: _even though Christ says in Mark 10 that it is man and women, He never says it can’t be man and man, woman and woman. therefore it must be okay. _

Couldn’t help but correct your error here…

Progressives makes no arguments based on the Church. A progressive would argue that your religious identity and political identity are two different things and one isn’t automatically beholden to the other.

Which is exactly the progressive sort of government we have, BTW.

 

[Vonsalza]

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

God Bless

Thanks for your view.

The most immediate problem this creates is that it essentially divides the insurable market into two distinct classes; the inexpensively healthy and the expensively sick.

You get cheap rates while you’re young and healthy and then you must convert over to whatever is being done for sick folks when you eventually start coming down with the knocks and bangs of older age.

So what do we do with the people who aren’t young and healthy? It seems to be a half-solution that comes at direct expense to their older selves…

 

[DarkLight]

The most immediate problem this creates is that it essentially divides the insurable market into two distinct classes; the inexpensively healthy and the expensively sick.

You get cheap rates while you’re young and healthy and then you must convert over to whatever is being done for sick folks when you eventually start coming down with the knocks and bangs of older age.

That’s kind of what I’m saying for people like me as well. Young I may be, but “young and healthy” I’m pretty sure ended somewhere in grade school.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

The most immediate problem this creates is that it essentially divides the insurable market into two distinct classes; the inexpensively healthy and the expensively sick.

You get cheap rates while you’re young and healthy and then you must convert over to whatever is being done for sick folks when you eventually start coming down with the knocks and bangs of older age.

That’s kind of what I’m saying for people like me as well. Young I may be, but “young and healthy” I’m pretty sure ended somewhere in grade school.

I have friends that share a similar condition in that regard.

God be praised, single-payer coverage for all is coming.

 

[phil19034]

Nonsense, because we don’t need a one thing fits all approach. And
honestly, that one of the reasons health care reform isn’t working. We
keep trying to create one solution, but no one can agree on one solution
because no single solution is going to satisfy everyone.

Since the very beginning of this nation, we have always had Federalists vs
Anti-Federalists (heck, that used to be the party names).

“Federalists” (who are currently represented by the Democratics) are
always going to be in favor of a strong central govt with govt programs.
While the “Anti-Federalists” (currently represented by the Republicans) are
always going to be in favor of local control and fearful of the federal
govt.

Too many people in this nation do not trust the Federal govt, which is why
they will never support a single payer system.

Also, the the fact that we are discussing this today is evidence that the
Democratics and socialist designed Obamacare to fail so they could push for
a single payer system.

I would rather in trust my 6 year old daughter with my health care
decisions than pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, pro-sterilizations,
anti-Catholic bureaucrats any day. The idea of putting healthcare
completely in the hands of the govt scares the hell out of me because I
don’t trust govt with that kind of power. This might not abuse it today,
but will eventually, even if it’s 200 years from now.

I’m not willing to help people today at the expense of future generations -
an I’m not talking about money.

 

[Catholicos]

Clearly what the Church is rejecting are totalitarian and atheistic ideologies, which just happen to be associated with systems that are called “communism” or “socialism” in modern times. If you have a system that does not have these ideologies, it is not rejected by this paragraph, even if it is similar to socialism is some other respect.

So the question becomes, does Social Security embody an atheistic ideology? Clearly not. Nothing in the theory or the practice of Social Security denies the existence of God. Then how about a totalitarian ideology? The definition of totalitarian is:

Ok so I can at least see how you’ve arrived at this. You’re reasoning is that because Socialism isn’t as totalitarian as Communism, the Catechism does not find anything immoral about Socialism as it is applied to SocSec, healthcare . I haven’t focused or reasoned this based on atheism, or at least solely due to atheism that communism certainly applies, and to a lesser extent socialism as well.

Based on the Catholic Churches teaching, asking whether these govt systems are atheist or not aren’t the right questions to ask,. You should be focusing on, private ownership and the free will given to the individuals .

If I ask these question to you who don’t believe there’s anything immoral about these entitlements:

• Do you own that social security account you paid into, yes or no?
• Is it freely yours to give away, like a car or personal item before or after you die, yes or no?
• Are your moral beliefs taken into account in how you receive these entitlement as well as how they’re funded?

Nothing I’ve asked explicitly addresses atheism. Neither the atheist or believer has pure ownership to these entitlements.

Even an IRA you have more ownership. If I want to cash the IRA out, early I just pay the penalty, I can give away to whomever I please. If I die, I can leave it to anyone I want, I lose nothing except paying the tax. there’s no restriction on whether that person remarry or not. Focus on ‘ownership’ and private property and you’ll better understand Catholic teaching on Socialism, and all types of entitlements that apply its principles , none of which contradicts the Catechism.

And what exactly is moral about paying the tax to get benefits , then later when you collect, have to include that as income tax? That’s me like paying for a toll at a bridge, then before I get to the end, pay again, is that just?

 

[qui_est_ce]

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.

“Entitlements produce donors without love and recipients without gratitude.” Antonin Scalia.

 

[stinkcat_14]

“Entitlements produce donors without love and recipients without gratitude.” Antonin Scalia.

Sounds like social security and medicare to me.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Ok so I can at least see how you’ve arrived at this. You’re reasoning is that because Socialism isn’t as totalitarian as Communism…

Close, but not exactly. Social Security - regardless of what label you put on it - does not have the key bad features mentioned in 2425.

Based on the Catholic Churches teaching, …you should be focusing on, private ownership and the free will given to the individuals .

It would be helpful to refer to those paragraphs of the Catechism that refer to free will and private ownership.

If I ask these question to you who don’t believe there’s anything immoral about these entitlements:

• Do you own that social security account you paid into, yes or no?

No. It is just like any other tax that I owe. I do not own the tax after I have paid it.

• Is it freely yours to give away, like a car or personal item before or after you die, yes or no?

Since I answered “no” to the first question, this one is obviously “no” as well.

• Are your moral beliefs taken into account in how you receive these entitlement as well as how they’re funded?

I don’t know what you mean by “taken into account.” My moral beliefs are consistent with how I receive Social Security benefits in that I see no moral problem with how it is done. And my moral beliefs are consistent with how it is funeded - that being though an employment tax.

Even an IRA you have more ownership.

If your point is that you do not own Social Security it is agreed.

Focus on ‘ownership’ and private property and you’ll better understand Catholic teaching on Socialism, and all types of entitlements that apply its principles , none of which contradicts the Catechism.

I guess you mean it does not contradict 2425, but perhaps contradicts other parts of the Catechism - namely the parts that deal with ownership and private property? I agree there is a Catholic teaching on Socialism, or more specifically Communism, because it denies that there is any private property at all. Under Communism, everything you have really belongs to the state and can only be used for the good of the collective. That is rejected by the Church. But that does not mean that everything you come in contact with must be your private property. In particular, that does not mean the taxes you pay for roads, schools, or Social Security, must be your private property. The Church recognizes a legitimate role for government to collect taxes and provide for the common good. The Church only rejects systems that enlarge that role to the point of confiscating all private property, which of course Social Security does not do.

And what exactly is moral about paying the tax to get benefits , then later when you collect, have to include that as income tax? That’s me like paying for a toll at a bridge, then before I get to the end, pay again, is that just?

You might address that as a fairness question, but not a moral question.

 

[Catholicos]

It would be helpful to refer to those paragraphs of the Catechism that refer to free will and private ownership.

I’ll make it easier for you. This Catechism is every bit about morality, never ignoring divine and natural law, and doesn’t always reject civil laws that are moral. This paragraph gives your the moral teaching and the answer to this threads question, however and whatever way you want to call Single Payer HCS.

 

[Catholicos]

I’ll just end it with this. You’re obviously a God fearing well intended individual. I don’t question your morality at all, even if we may have some differences on this issue, or difference in understanding some of the economic and moral principles . We’re on the same side, believe me.

I believe the Church believes healthcare is a fundamental right, we should all have it, especially the poor and most vulnerable. I’m with Her all the way on that. I believe the Church would do a better job in handling healthcare and entitlements. Obviously, that’s not going to happen. Even though the system is not perfect or absolutely moral, I’m thankful we have something, many other nations have nothing. We can always improve on it, but we can never ignore the morality our Church teaches us.

 

[Vonsalza]

Nonsense, because we don’t need a one thing fits all approach. And
honestly, that one of the reasons health care reform isn’t working. We
keep trying to create one solution, but no one can agree on one solution
because no single solution is going to satisfy everyone.

Sadly, I thought we were going to have an enlightening discussion and here you go cranking the ideological-axiom machine…

Since the very beginning of this nation, we have always had Federalists vs
Anti-Federalists (heck, that used to be the party names).

As support for a single-payer system is growing on both sides of the divide, I’m not terribly concerned with violating the preconceptions of men that have been dead for two centuries. We have no kings; not even them.

Too many people in this nation do not trust the Federal govt, which is why
they will never support a single payer system.

Every single day that is becoming less and less the reality. And thank God above.

The coming generations are more globally aware than yours or mine. When they hear “If we adopt a single-payer program, tyranny and suffering will result!”, they look around at systems in the real-world that presently try it and find “Nope. That’s just not what’s happening”.

Also, the the fact that we are discussing this today is evidence that the
Democratics and socialist designed Obamacare to fail so they could push for
a single payer system.

I agree, change is hard. But there are some parts of Obamacare that some people must like, as thoroughly evidenced by the repeated Republican failures to repeal it en toto. The most enduring part of it is exactly that which made insurance so expensive for the rest of us; no consideration of pre-existing conditions.

I would rather in trust my 6 year old daughter with my health care
decisions than pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, pro-sterilizations,
anti-Catholic bureaucrats any day.

I feel exactly the same way about the care of my kids.

Luckily, a single-payer system would have us going to exactly the same private-practice doctor we’ve always gone to.

You realize this, right? Under a single-payer system, the only thing that gets heavily “socialized” is the health insurance industry. Not your doctor.
Again, you understand this? Correct?

I’m not willing to help people today at the expense of future generations -
an I’m not talking about money.

This is the glory of a democratic system. If the idea ends up being crap, we or our kids can just vote it out. If it sticks around, then it would seem most Americans like it more than they dislike it.