The Morality of a Single Payer Health Care System

[JonNC]

have not misrepresented social security and medicare. They are welfare programs pure and simple and the courts don’t dispute that.

This is an intentional misrepresentation. Period.

 

[JonNC]

I never said that government should run healthcare, I have been pretty consistent that medicare and social security need to go. I believe in individual responsibility and markets, not big government welfare programs.

Well, here’s something we agree on, but accusing millions of Americans who were told that both programs are supported by their “contributions”/ “premiums” in a way similar to insurance as being mere welfare recipients is an intentional misrepresentation

 

[stinkcat_14]

This is an intentional misrepresentation. Period.

Not even close, buddy. The courts have consistently held that they are welfare programs.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Well, here’s something we agree on, but accusing millions of Americans who were told that both programs are supported by their “contributions”/ “premiums” in a way similar to insurance as being mere welfare recipients is an intentional misrepresentation

Big news, people were lied to by politicians. The courts have consistently ruled that the programs are welfare programs. People who receive welfare benefits are called welfare recipients. Nothing is being misrepresented.

 

[JonNC]

[quote="JonNC, post:664, topic

Big news, people were lied to by politicians. The courts have consistently ruled that the programs are welfare programs. People who receive welfare benefits are called welfare recipients. Nothing is being misrepresented.

When I take my pension, is that welfare ? If I pay in, it isn’t. If I pay into Social Security, with the money ostensibly placed in a trust fund , a TRUST FUND!

You can quote Fleming v. Nestor all you want, but the American people should have every expectation of receiving a check for their contributions.

The true"welfare" recipients are politicians, particularly progressives, who continue to take from the trust fund in order to buy elections with the current and future failed programs like single payer.

 

[stinkcat_14]

When I take my penguin, is that welfare ? If I pay in, it isn’t. If I pay into Social Security, with the money ostensibly placed in a trust fund , a TRUST FUND!

You can quote Fleming v. Nestor all you want, but the American people should have every expectation of receiving a check for their contributions.

If you bought the penguin, then of course it is all yours. If you mean pension, a pension is different from social security. You have a legal contract with a pension, there is no contract with social security or medicare. With both programs you will receive what the government decides you receive. If your pension stopped making payments, you could sue the pension plan. If Social Security stopped making payments you would not be able to sue because there are no property rights in social security.

 

[JonNC]

The fact that the government protects itself doesn’t change the original plan. It was designed as a pension for those who paid in. It is not welfare and I intend to get back as much of my money that my
lifespan will permit. I earned the money.
Now, if they want to privatize it, I’d be all in favor it, because they had no business doing it in the first place.
But to refer to Americans who paid in for 40 and 50 years as welfare recipients is a vicious slander

 

[stinkcat_14]

The fact that the government protects itself doesn’t change the original plan. It was designed as a pension for those who paid in. It is not welfare and I intend to get back as much of my money that my

lifespan will permit. I earned the money.

You didn’t earn anything. Nobody earns welfare. Suppose I am a member of Congress, do I have a moral obligation to vote to continue SS payments? The answer is I would have no obligation whatsoever. Nobody has a property right to social security. You can act like a petulant 5 year old all you want, but that is your only argument. You never quote the courts, you never quote the social security act itself, or the regulations. You just repeat the lie that you have some sort of property right to social security benefits. The truth is, you have no property rights to social security.

Now, if they want to privatize it, I’d be all in favor it, because they had no business doing it in the first place.

But to refer to Americans who paid in for 40 and 50 years as welfare recipients is a vicious slander

The truth can never be slander. But cite me one supreme court case claiming you have a property right to social security. You cannot, which means you are the one engaging in the vicious slander.

 

[Vonsalza]

Its not irrational to fear that one day socialists, communists, etc could win a major election and cause havoc because of socialized medicine.

I would argue that it is. Communism had its run and what, exactly, constitutes socialism (in a negative context) is endlessly subjective. I’m sure you agree that public roads and a national military are socialist concepts, even if the constitution authorizes them. That doesn’t change that fact.

What IS irrational is “I’ve made up my mind; I’m beyond the influence of additional information on this topic”. That’s all I was saying there.

Socialized medicine depends on a moral govt and competent govt.

If this were a discussion about socialized medicine, I might engage here. But we’re not talking about that. We’re talking about socialized health insurance. Which, again, is a different horse.

NOW, that said, I could accept some kind of single payer system at the state level, but not on the federal level. At least then, if my state was corrupt or provided horrible healthcare, I could move to another state.
God Bless.

Progress.
And as long as all the states met some standard (like coverage of all Americans regardless of preexisting conditions), I’d be totally on-board with that as a functioning solution.

 

[Vonsalza]

No argument here. Hence, the regular lack of morality from progressives.

Even the non-Christian knows morality, Jon. The law is written on our hearts, per Christ himself.

They may be, but certainly one’s political identity is should be influenced by one’s religious identity.

I’m cool with that, but secular governance cannot endorse a specific faith over another. Apropos, the American government could never be specifically beholden to Catechism or the Sharia. The constitution explicitly bars it.

But our political system is not intended to be progressive. It is intended to be liberal, and they are two entirely different things.

My dictionary gives “liberal” as a synonym for “progressive”. I imagine yours does too. We certainly see it in the common parlance.

And my dictionary gives “open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.” for “liberal”.

Progressives do not believe in freedom. Progressivism is statist, always has been.The American form of governance, a constitutional representative republic, is contrary to that statist philosophy.

For those interested in what “progressivism” really is, please do enjoy “Progressivism” from Britanica.

The American system in based on individual rights and liberty, and limited government.

Sure. But the more people you have living in a fixed space, the more rules you must have to regulate interactions.

Our legal and cultural foundation is Judeo-Christian.

The founders were actually aiming for generic deism in their capacity as founders. If you HAD to be more specific, Episcopal.

But Judeo-Christian religious principles, which is the basis of our western culture, do and should influence our governance.

And as we have a secular government, so too can any other culture. For good or bad.

 

[JonNC]

=“stinkcat_14, post:670, topic:447347, full:true”]
You didn’t earn anything. Nobody earns welfare.
Every dime I worked for I earned. Every dime that was taken from my I earned. I earned it. You can denigrate Americans all you want, but the fact remains that it was earned by those who contributed.

Suppose I am a member of Congress, do I have a moral obligation to vote to continue SS payments?
Lord forbid, with the vile contempt you hold for the American people, but Yes, you eould. As long as you continue to vote to take the money from people , you have moral obligation to fulfill the promise made. It may not be a legal obligation, but it is a moral one

Nobody has a property right to social security. You can act like a petulant 5 year old all you want, but that is your only argument. You never quote the courts, you never quote the social security act itself, or the regulations.
And you can speak like an authoritarian all you want, but the fact is you would have a moral obligation to fulfill the promise implied in the taking of people 's hard earned money.

You just repeat the lie that you have some sort of property right to social security benefits. The truth is, you have no property rights to social security.

The lie is that the government doesn’t have a moral obligation to fulfill the promise made. If you won’t fulfill the promise don’t take the money.

Now, if they want to privatize it, I’d be all in favor it, because they had no business doing it in the first place.

But to refer to Americans who paid in for 40 and 50 years as welfare recipients is a vicious slander

The truth can never be slander. But cite me one supreme court case claiming you have a property right to social security. You cannot, which means you are the one engaging in the vicious slander.

It is a vicious slander the way you speak of the American people.

 

[stinkcat_14]

The lie is that the government doesn’t have a moral obligation to fulfill the promise made. If you won’t fulfill the promise don’t take the money.

Show me the court case where the it is found that the government has a legal obligation to provide benefits.

It is a vicious slander the way you speak of the American people.

When you say the American people do you mean the people in the wagon or the ones pulling the wagon? Who speaks for the grandchildren who have to cover the cost of social security and medicare?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Paragraph 2431

Let’s look at how CCC 2431 applies to single payer health insurance. CCC2431 says:

Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical, or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principal task of the state is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labors and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. . . . Another task of the state is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the state but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society.

I assume that those who claim single payer is immoral will point to doctors and claim that single payer prevents doctors from enjoying the fruits of their labors. But having the government pay for health care does not do that. Having to negotiate with the government is no different from having to negotiate with big insurance companies as far as the effect on the doctor. Doctors will have no less clinical freedom under a properly run single payer system than they do now under insurance companies. Before I make any more assumptions, perhaps someone can jump in and explain how single payer violates 2431.

 

[JonNC]

I assume that those who claim single payer is immoral will point to doctors and claim that single payer prevents doctors from enjoying the fruits of their labors. But having the government pay for health care does not do that. Having to negotiate with the government is no different from having to negotiate with big insurance companies as far as the effect on the doctor. Doctors will have no less clinical freedom under a properly run single payer system than they do now under insurance companies. Before I make any more assumptions, perhaps someone can jump in and explain how single payer violates 2431.

There will be no such thing as “negotiations” with the government. Doctors will be told what they will be paid for services. Patients will be prohibited from paying additional fees to doctors to supplement the government fees paid, if they can afford it after the dramatic tax increases that must occur, probably into the fourth lowest quintile and maybe the fifth.
A federal government that is already $150 trillion in debt will have no choice but to heavily tax the population and demand services from healthcare professionals at low compensation.

 

[JonNC]

** The responsibility of the state. "Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical, or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principal task of the state is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labors and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. . . . Another task of the state is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the state but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society."217**

I’m not Catholic of the Roman variety, but this I can say amen to.
Nothing here implies that the state should take over healthcare for the general population, and seems rather specific of minimizing the government role in exercising human rights.
But I’m not going claim to be an interpreter of the CCC

 

[JonNC]

Show me the court case where the it is found that the government has a legal obligation to provide benefits.

Show me a court case that states, specifically, it is welfare.
Show me a welfare program that requires one to pay in most of their adult life in order to receive benefits.
WIC ? Food Stamps? AFDC? Medicaid?
None?

When you say the American people do you mean the people in the wagon or the ones pulling the wagon? Who speaks for the grandchildren who have to cover the cost of social security and medicare?

I’ll speak for them. The Democratic Party first lied to your great grandparents. Then in 1967 they began stealing from the trust fund. And the Republicans lacked the courage to fix it.
Meanwhile, they spent trillions on failed social welfare programs for which they had no real constitutional mandate.
You have a chance now to privatize the program and get the government out of it. Dramatically reduce social spending so that those who paid in and had their trust fund pillaged will get a return on the 15% they paid in their entire adult life.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Show me a court case that states, specifically, it is welfare.

Show me a welfare program that requires one to pay in most of their adult life in order to receive benefits.

WIC ? Food Stamps? AFDC? Medicaid?

None?

Some people have never paid into social security and receive benefits. Also, you don’t need to pay social security taxes all your life to receive benefits either.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I’ll speak for them. The Democratic Party first lied to your great grandparents. Then in 1967 they began stealing from the trust fund. And the Republicans lacked the courage to fix it.

Meanwhile, they spent trillions on failed social welfare programs for which they had no real constitutional mandate.

You have a chance now to privatize the program and get the government out of it. Dramatically reduce social spending so that those who paid in and had their trust fund pillaged will get a return on the 15% they paid in their entire adult life.

The best privatization would be to eliminate both programs. Grandchildren have no moral obligation to continue the program just because their grandparents are greedy.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I assume that those who claim single payer is immoral will point to doctors and claim that single payer prevents doctors from enjoying the fruits of their labors. But having the government pay for health care does not do that. Having to negotiate with the government is no different from having to negotiate with big insurance companies as far as the effect on the doctor. Doctors will have no less clinical freedom under a properly run single payer system than they do now under insurance companies. Before I make any more assumptions, perhaps someone can jump in and explain how single payer violates 2431.

There will be no such thing as “negotiations” with the government. Doctors will be told what they will be paid for services.

Speculation, and not a necessary part of single-payer health insurance. How is this any different from doctors being “told” what they will be paid by Blue Cross?

Patients will be prohibited from paying additional fees to doctors to supplement the government fees paid

Untrue. A single-payer health insurance plan could cover just so much and the patient could pay the extra. There is nothing inherent in the concept of single payer that prevents this.

(quoted CCC 2431)

I’m not Catholic of the Roman variety, but this I can say amen to.
Nothing here implies that the state should take over healthcare for the general population…

…nor does it preclude the government from funding health care.

 

[XndrK]

Untrue. A single-payer health insurance plan could cover just so much and the patient could pay the extra. There is nothing inherent in the concept of single payer that prevents this.

Then why is Charlie Gard dead?