The Morality of a Single Payer Health Care System

[JonNC]

=Vonsalza;14871268]I’m sorry to hear it.

Thank you.

Obviously, we don’t have to walk to far to find examples in the private market as well. Again, rule of marginal analysis…

Except that in a truly free market, one has choices. That isn’t the case with government healthcare. The greater the power, the less the freedom.

Me too. And one of those enumerated powers seems to be the ability to create new programs, like the Interstate Highway System or the soon-coming U.S. Single-Payer Healthcare System.

Not if we follow the enumerated powers. The interstate highway system was edged through a tiny opening - necessary for defense. There is no such doorway. If it is a right, government is obligated to leave it alone. If we’ve decided to allow the government to usurp that right, then call it what it is, an authoritarian government power.

Those are dead men. While we owe them gratitude for shaping our government’s origin, we owe them no obligation to let them shape its development.
As reading current attitudes into past events is anachronism, so too is trying to read past attitudes into current events.

That is, frankly, a dangerous attitude. It is that attitude that is slowly eroding away individual liberty, including free speech, religious free exercise, the right to keep and bear arms, due process, and many others. If the individual rights, limited government and liberty are simply “past attitudes”, then there is nothing left to fight for, and the statist tyrants.

I obviously do as well, seeing as the rhetoric flies both ways. Thus why I campaign whenever I can that all Americans should be able to get access to good care, regardless of their income. Such a system is the only system for followers of Christ.

As long as it follows the teachings of Christ, which does not include coercion. But it isn’t rhetorical to want to preserve the individual rights of my progeny.

Jon

 

[Rau]

If the individual rights, limited government and liberty are simply “past attitudes”, then there is nothing left to fight for, and the statist tyrants.

Makes you wonder why those countries with a Constitution differing from the oh so revered US constitution even bother to exist.

Perhaps even Americans of today see some merit in moving on in various areas?

 

[JonNC]

Makes you wonder why those countries with a Constitution differing from the oh so revered US constitution even bother to exist.

Perhaps even Americans of today see some merit in moving on in various areas?

Nope. It just shows that we are not Europe. We escaped Europe. We are distinct in our firm belief that government has no power save what the people and states loan it through the constitution , power we can take away, legally.

Our constitution is, without doubt , the greatest governance document ever conceived by humankind, decisively so when the profound flaw of slavery was removed. It recognizes that rights come from God, not government.

There may be others that are similarly great, but none greater.

 

[Rau]

Nope. It just shows that we are not Europe. We escaped Europe. We are distinct in our firm belief that government has no power save what the people and states loan it through the constitution , power we can take away, legally.

Our constitution is, without doubt , the greatest governance document ever conceived by humankind, decisively so when the profound flaw of slavery was removed. It recognizes that rights come from God, not government.

There may be others that are similarly great, but none greater.

I applaud the open mind.

PS: Many claims are made about what constitutes a right bestowed by God. The claim does not make it so.

 

[JonNC]

I applaud the open mind.

PS: Many claims are made about what constitutes a right bestowed by God. The claim does not make it so.

It n the United States, we look to the Declaration of Independence as a foundation. Then the constitution which limits government power to the enumerated powers. One thing is for sure, I’m not convinced by the argument that government determines rights. That’s a model that leads to tyranny.

I’m sure you understand that.

 

[Rau]

…One thing is for sure, I’m not convinced by the argument that government determines rights.

Me neither. Nor authors of documents.

 

[JonNC]

Me neither. Nor authors of documents.

Good, we agree. Then let’s assume that we have lots of rights that government should leave alone.

 

[Vonsalza]

Except that in a truly free market, one has choices.

Again, please consider that even in the most laissez-faire society that much of the consumption of healthcare is on an emergency basis.

As a reality, people do not “shop” when experiencing an emergency. They get to the first person that can help them.

Not if we follow the enumerated powers. The interstate highway system was edged through a tiny opening - necessary for defense.

I’m sure you justify the space program similarly?

We can always do more things in the name of being more secure. Like providing some sort of universal healthcare.

Gotta keep those potential draftees healthy!

If we’ve decided to allow the government to usurp that right, then call it what it is, an authoritarian government power.

Again, Jon, this is a democratic republic. “The Government” isn’t going to do anything that the representatives of the people don’t allow it to. And very soon “the people” are going to get a single-payer system enacted. Thanks be to God.

That is, frankly, a dangerous attitude.

No it isn’t. It’s merely the recognition that anachronism works both ways. And I think you see the logic in it.

As long as it follows the teachings of Christ, which does not include coercion.

As I recall, Christ told us to render unto Caesar. This is going to be something else covered by our renderings.

But it isn’t rhetorical to want to preserve the individual rights of my progeny.

I agree. In the vein, I do what I can to secure the right to good care regardless of income for both yours and mine.

 

[o_mlly]

“The Government” isn’t going to do anything that the representatives of the people don’t allow it to.

The legislative branch has abandoned its authority to the courts and small minorities have moved evil agendas into law bypassing elected officials by using appointees (judges) instead.
Given the penchant of our courts over the past 35 years to claim unarticulated rights in our Constitution, the explicit exclusion of so-called “abortion services” from coverage is essential. Similarly, health care reform legislation must clearly articulate the rights of conscience for individuals and institutions. catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/social-justice/principles-of-catholic-social-teaching-and-health-care-reform.html
We have already seen these invented rights: the woman’s right to privacy (abortion), the gay persons right to civil marriage (same sex marriage). And coming soon: the transgender persons’ right to the surgical “health care” option, and mandatory end of life counseling (euthanasia).

Catholics are correct in questioning the morality of universal healthcare. Federal government need not employ the doctors or own the facilities to control them. All that is needed is a monopsony in engaging their services. The golden rule applies: the one who has the gold makes the rules.

 

[Theo520]

That would amount to rescinding the individual mandate that everyone carry insurance, since heath sharing plans are not insurance.

How are health sharing plans not a functional form of insurance?

• A pool of people have agreed to share in the costs of their healthcare.
• When you go for treatment, you provide your coverage ID and receive the services, billed to the provider.
• Your contributions (premium) are used to cover overhead and build up a reserve for use by yourself or other members.

 

[Vonsalza]

The legislative branch has abandoned its authority to the courts and small minorities have moved evil agendas into law bypassing elected officials by using appointees (judges) instead.

Congress still passes the laws. If enough congressmen think the “Commerce Clause” has received too much stretching, they should muster their will to amend it.

Catholics are correct in questioning the morality of universal healthcare.

“It could be abused, thus it should be created” is an argument anyone can use against virtually anything. As such, the argument is sensationalist and worthless.

Federal government need not employ the doctors or own the facilities to control them. All that is needed is a monopsony in engaging their services. The golden rule applies: the one who has the gold makes the rules.

In most single-payer systems I’ve looked at, the doctors don’t directly work for the government. As to “who owns the hospital”, it varies country to country - just as it varies all over the US. We do have quite a few hospitals owned at different governmental levels in this country. And I’m not talking about VA hospitals, either.

 

[o_mlly]

Congress still passes the laws. If enough congressmen think the “Commerce Clause” has received too much stretching, they should muster their will to amend it.

Jurisprudence cites the 14th amendment and its principles of due process and equal rights as the basis upon which the Court has determined that the Constitution protects the right to contraception, to abortion, to consensual sex, and to same-sex marriage.

The legislature cannot and should not pass laws contradicting the Constitution. An amendment is required. Therefore, 2/3 of the senate and 2/3 of house must call for and subsequently 2/3 of the states must ratify any amendment. Possible but highly improbable.

“It could be abused, thus it should be created” is an argument anyone can use against virtually anything. As such, the argument is sensationalist and worthless.

Google the number of abortions since Roe v Wade. Examine the number before the Hyde Amendment became law. Drill down in the federal funding to Planned Parenthood to discover how the Hyde Amendment was and is circumvented.

In most single-payer systems I’ve looked at, the doctors don’t directly work for the government. As to “who owns the hospital”, it varies country to country - just as it varies all over the US. We do have quite a few hospitals owned at different governmental levels in this country. And I’m not talking about VA hospitals, either.

The point is that the ownership of the providers’ resources is irrelevant in a monopsony.

 

[stinkcat_14]

How are health sharing plans not a functional form of insurance?

• A pool of people have agreed to share in the costs of their healthcare.
• When you go for treatment, you provide your coverage ID and receive the services, billed to the provider.
• Your contributions (premium) are used to cover overhead and build up a reserve for use by yourself or other members.

Are sharing plans legally obligated to pay?

 

[JonNC]

=Vonsalza;14872985]Again, please consider that even in the most laissez-faire society that much of the consumption of healthcare is on an emergency basis.

As a reality, people do not “shop” when experiencing an emergency. They get to the first person that can help them.

You’re making an argument for catastrophic care, though my personal experience is not as you describe it.

I

'm sure you justify the space program similarly?

Wait, I didn’t say I justified it. I said their was a narrow door they used to justify it. And yes, they used the same for the space program. Sputnik.

We can always do more things in the name of being more secure. Like providing some sort of universal healthcare.

Even if I agreed that government dictated universal care meant more security ( which I don’t), defense is an enumerated power. Healthcare is not. Healthcare is a right, which means the government has no enumerated power regarding it. Pass a constitutional amendment if you want it to be a government power.

Gotta keep those potential draftees healthy!

If you mean military draft, that hasn’t been around for decades. :whacky:

Again, Jon, this is a democratic republic.

No, it is not. It is a constitutional representative republic.

“The Government” isn’t going to do anything that the representatives of the people don’t allow it to.

By design, that is the case under the enumerated powers. That can only be changed by constitutional amendment.

And very soon “the people” are going to get a single-payer system enacted. Thanks be to God.

God has nothing to do with authoritarianism, and that’s what government dictates single payer is. If you want it, call for the passage of a constitutional amendment. If you want Donald Trump in charge of your healthcare, call for a constitutional amendment. I certainly don’t want any politician in charge of my family’s healthcare.

No it isn’t. It’s merely the recognition that anachronism works both ways. And I think you see the logic in it.

No logic on your part. When we’ve decided that the idea of individual rights and limited government are no longer necessary, that not anachronistic. That’s dangerous. We saw that attitude in Europe 80 to 100 years ago.

As I recall, Christ told us to render unto Caesar. This is going to be something else covered by our renderings.

Christ never said you are to render our responsibility to care for the least of His children to Caesar. But it does seem you understand that government dictated healthcare is the work of Caesar, not God.

I agree. In the vein, I do what I can to secure the right to good care regardless of income for both yours and mine.

If that is the case, i expect you would join me in opposing authoritarian government dictated healthcare.

 

[JonNC]

How are health sharing plans not a functional form of insurance?

• A pool of people have agreed to share in the costs of their healthcare.
• When you go for treatment, you provide your coverage ID and receive the services, billed to the provider.
• Your contributions (premium) are used to cover overhead and build up a reserve for use by yourself or other members.

They sidestep the control of progressives, in that the religious ones don’t provide for things like abortion.

 

[Rau]

… If you want Donald Trump in charge of your healthcare, call for a constitutional amendment…

Or perhaps consider hybrid structures so that those with the financial freedoms can exercise full medical freedoms: choice of doctor, treatment options etc, while those lacking the necessary financial resources can avail themselves of a (bureaucratically) defined level of medical care? Clearly, if “somebody else” pays for my medical treatment, they will play some part in determining the limits. If I am paying myself, my financial resources will determine the limits.

 

[JonNC]

Or perhaps consider hybrid structures so that those with the financial freedoms can exercise full medical freedoms: choice of doctor, treatment options etc, while those lacking the necessary financial resources can avail themselves of a (bureaucratically) defined level of medical care? Clearly, if “somebody else” pays for my medical treatment, they will play some part in determining the limits. If I am paying myself, my financial resources will determine the limits.

At a state level I have no problem with this. In fact, a combination of Church, charities, local and state government can potentially do a great job of caring for the needs of those in need.
Under the current structure, ignoring the question of constitutionality for the moment, this plan could work well (though not as well as a state centered plan) assuming that those who wish to “opt out” of government care have access to the "contributions they currently make to government care, specifically, Medicare.

Jon

 

[Rau]

At a state level I have no problem with this. In fact, a combination of Church, charities, local and state government can potentially do a great job of caring for the needs of those in need.
Under the current structure, ignoring the question of constitutionality for the moment, this plan could work well (though not as well as a state centered plan) assuming that those who wish to “opt out” of government care have access to the "contributions they currently make to government care, specifically, Medicare.

Jon

The constitutional question is I think separate. And US specific. However you deal with the funding, it only works if the well off contribute more than the less well off. I believe the necessity of rich subsidizing poor is inescapable. Whether an optional donation by the well off to that end would do the job (as opposed to the broadly accepted progressive tax system) …is another question.

 

[JonNC]

The constitutional question is I think separate. And US specific. However you deal with the funding, it only works if the well off contribute more than the less well off. I believe the necessity of rich subsidizing poor is inescapable. Whether an optional donation by the well off to that end would do the job (as opposed to the broadly accepted progressive tax system) …is another question.

Its already done that way. Specifically, Medicare is (ostensibly) funded by a different tax than, say, Medicaid. But I wasn’t talking about the wealthy. I was talking about people of very modest means, such as myself.

 

[Vonsalza]

You’re making an argument for catastrophic care, though my personal experience is not as you describe it.

In no way did I suggest it as being the only type, so lets not stretch the goal-post on this. But it is a very pertinent type, as a large portion of hospital admissions come via the emergency room.

Even if I agreed that government dictated universal care meant more security ( which I don’t), defense is an enumerated power. Healthcare is not.

To the contrary, I think it’s actually a valid exercise of the commerce clause. One of the few.

If you mean military draft, that hasn’t been around for decades. :whacky:

You’ve seem to forgotten than we only levy it in time of need. :whacky:
When our 18 year old men no longer have to register for Selective Service, you’ll have a point. But not until then.

God has nothing to do with authoritarianism…

Well… He is God, right? Sovereign author, judge and finisher of all creation?

Certainly seems rather authoritarian to me, even as he allows for a free-will component. That just means His autocracy isn’t purely deterministic.

Moreover, all things certainly serve the will of God, ultimately. Including the rise of powers you don’t like.

In sum, this “starter” is rather under-baked, imo.

…and that’s what government dictates single payer is.

I disagree. It’ll be no more authoritarian than any other construct of our government that is in place because your opinions against it aren’t popular enough.

If you want it, call for the passage of a constitutional amendment.

No need. The constitution as-is provides sufficient room for enactment.

No logic on your part.

Again, Jon, Anachronism works both ways. Trying to divine Adams’ or Jefferson’s views on a contemporary issue that they either didn’t face or faced in an entirely different context is another solid example of Anachronism.

Denial won’t help you here.

When we’ve decided that the idea of individual rights and limited government are no longer necessary, that not anachronistic. That’s dangerous. We saw that attitude in Europe 80 to 100 years ago.

Oh goodness, you don’t need to look as far as Europe. The plight of the Native Americans under American “Manifest Destiny” serves a nice example.

Again, Jon, everyone believes in “limited government”. Just as long as you don’t limit the parts that they personally benefit from; knowingly or not.

It’s a useless term.

Christ never said you are to render our responsibility to care for the least of His children to Caesar.

Neither do single-payer advocates.
The responsibility of care still lies with the doctors. The government is just acting as the insurer. They issue no direct care just like Humana or Blue Cross doesn’t issue direct care.

If that is the case, i expect you would join me in opposing authoritarian government dictated healthcare.

I agree fully. Let’s support a single-payer option instead.