Why do you think forced healthcare is immoral?

[mpb74]

Original post

A few of these threads have been popping up since the passage of the healthcare bill, and I notice quite a few of you are upset over the mandate section of the bill.

I am curious if you think that it’s also immoral for the government to tax you in any way (re: being forced to purchase something), and if it’s immoral for the government to make you follow any other laws (re: forced charity).

If you think one is okay but not the other, why?

The government does have a right to tax. The Gospels confirm Christ’s reaction to a question on Roman taxation. The level of taxation and the underhanded way taxes are slipped into many transactions is immoral. Look at your bills, especially utility bills, and add up all the taxes and think if you knew you were paying them. Immoral politicians sneak these taxes in knowing most people won’t notice them. Since these taxes are rarely recognized, voters do not hold these politicians accountable come November
Forcing me to buy something is coercive, especially as in the health care legislation, where we must buy a product from a private company. The fees I am charging are enriching private parties and not for legitimate gov. use.

Of course government is correct in enforcing legitimate laws. That is part of the reason they are formed. However “Forced charity” is an oxymoron. If you take money from me against my will, I am not being charitable. I am acting in fear of repercussions. Kind of like getting mugged.

 

[Phil_Stone]

Medicare is a Govenment program, but it is a lot more efficient than For Profit Health Insurance. It doesn’t pay ridiculous salaries to its executives, and their stockholders in turn do not benefit from denying health care to people. In most of the civilized/industrialized world, this would be criminal. If ours was really the best system, why is it no one else is trying to make their system more like what the Insurance Cartel likes best?

The concept of subsidiarity actually has limited applicability to this debate. First it presumes the local operation to be competent, but when thousands of Americans are dying and/ or going bankrupt, that competence is not credible. Additionally, what about my wanting to help people in other states? When I know people in other places, even other continents, need help, why would I limit my concern to those nearest to me? The fact that others may be more responsible for them doesn’t mean that I should not care, or act. It seems that in many circumstances it is through my government that I can best help the most people in the most efficient manner.

 

[royal_archer]

Medicare is a Govenment program, but it is a lot more efficient than For Profit Health Insurance. It doesn’t pay ridiculous salaries to its executives, and their stockholders in turn do not benefit from denying health care to people. In most of the civilized/industrialized world, this would be criminal. If ours was really the best system, why is it no one else is trying to make their system more like what the Insurance Cartel likes best?

The concept of subsidiarity actually has limited applicability to this debate. First it presumes the local operation to be competent, but when thousands of Americans are dying and/ or going bankrupt, that competence is not credible. Additionally, what about my wanting to help people in other states? When I know people in other places, even other continents, need help, why would I limit my concern to those nearest to me? The fact that others may be more responsible for them doesn’t mean that I should not care, or act. It seems that in many circumstances it is through my government that I can best help the most people in the most efficient manner.

Is forcing the working class to bear an additional burden of those who do not wish to work efficiently helping anyone? Is expanding access to non medically necesary treatments by those who will not have to pay efficiently helping anyone? Is creating a system where people are rewarded for not contributing while punishing those who do contribute efficiently helping anyone?

Keep in mind that with cash for clunkers less than half of the money went to designated recipients. Social Security and medicare will soon be bankrupt. The legislation is already forcing insurance rates up, not down. This is far from efficient.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Is forcing the working class to bear an additional burden of those who do not wish to work efficiently helping anyone? Is expanding access to non medically necesary treatments by those who will not have to pay efficiently helping anyone? Is creating a system where people are rewarded for not contributing while punishing those who do contribute efficiently helping anyone?

Keep in mind that with cash for clunkers less than half of the money went to designated recipients. Social Security and medicare will soon be bankrupt. The legislation is already forcing insurance rates up, not down. This is far from efficient.

Phil Stone 1 Royal Archer 0.

 

[tjm190]

Medicare is a Govenment program, but it is a lot more efficient than For Profit Health Insurance.

Let’s play the ‘provide evidence’ game- go!

It doesn’t pay ridiculous salaries to its executives,

I suppose executives at innsurance companies should except lower salaries then they could get elsewhere?

and their stockholders in turn do not benefit from denying health care to people.

I suppose the companies should pay out more/in more cases then the contracts they are bound by?

In most of the civilized/industrialized world, this would be criminal. If ours was really the best system, why is it no one else is trying to make their system more like what the Insurance Cartel likes best?

Ah, so we are to judge good and bad by popular opinion?

 

[tjm190]

Mentally impaired is usually in reference to either an illness or retardation. While in the literal sense of the word it may be true we don’t use mentally imapaired to mean drunks or high, it is used in reference to a permenant condition. If you didn’t know that, I sugest you get your mind off of economics and your money for a while and go to your local library and start reading.

Quite frankly, it really is not that uncommon to refer to someone who’s state of mind has been altered by psychoactive substances as mentally impaired.

 

[Gift_from_God]

Only in America do people hate free health care. Only in America.

Forcing healthcare is not immoral. Jesus isn’t looking at my government or yours and saying “Giving everyone free health care? MORTAL SIN!!”

Why would anyone want people to pay a bill for medical treatment? My grandmother recently had eye surgery and didn’t pay a dime and no, she did not have to wait three lifetimes for it.

When I see the doctor, I just pay for the prescriptions and that’s it.

In those “socialist” countries like Canada, France, the UK, etc, there are no bankruptcies due to medical costs ever. Shouldn’t it be fantastic that there will be less bankruptcies?

 

[tjm190]

Only in America do people hate free health care. Only in America.

‘free’ ((name removed by moderator)ut good or service here) does not exist.

Forcing healthcare is not immoral. Jesus isn’t looking at my government or yours and saying “Giving everyone free health care? MORTAL SIN!!”

Forcing people to buy insurance even though it is, mathematically speaking, not worth it most of the time is fine?

Why would anyone want people to pay a bill for medical treatment?

Because there are costs associated with it.

My grandmother recently had eye surgery and didn’t pay a dime and no, she did not have to wait three lifetimes for it.

I hear anecdotal evidence is valid.

When I see the doctor, I just pay for the prescriptions and that’s it.

Because you so lovingly shove the bill onto everybody else.

In those “socialist” countries like Canada, France, the UK, etc, there are no bankruptcies due to medical costs ever. Shouldn’t it be fantastic that there will be less bankruptcies?

Less bankruptcies of people- however, these countries don’t seem to have problems running their government into the ground without the massive defense spending we have here.

 

[mpb74]

Would Jesus have approved of the good Samaritan having to pay for that stranger’s healthcare at the point of a Roman spear?

 

[royal_archer]

Only in America do people hate free health care. Only in America.

Forcing healthcare is not immoral. Jesus isn’t looking at my government or yours and saying “Giving everyone free health care? MORTAL SIN!!”

Why would anyone want people to pay a bill for medical treatment? My grandmother recently had eye surgery and didn’t pay a dime and no, she did not have to wait three lifetimes for it.

When I see the doctor, I just pay for the prescriptions and that’s it.

In those “socialist” countries like Canada, France, the UK, etc, there are no bankruptcies due to medical costs ever. Shouldn’t it be fantastic that there will be less bankruptcies?

It isn’t free, it is paid for by a subset of the population through high taxes and through other mandates.

If it were truly free it would not be a problem. The problem is when a portion of society is enslaved to pay for health care for others.

No one is asking that Canada or any other socialist country adopt free market practices. Just don’t try to force socialist nanny state policies on grown up free people who can stand on their own two feet.

 

[cynic]

I wouldn’t call anyone paying the higher marginal tax rates “enslaved”. It is mostly the extreme rich, who let their money work for them, hide it in trusts etc. Oh poor them…

 

[tjm190]

I wouldn’t call anyone paying the higher marginal tax rates “enslaved”. It is mostly the extreme rich, who let their money work for them, hide it in trusts etc. Oh poor them…

Perhaps that money could be invested and doing good for our economy rather than put in trusts if the tax code didn’t make doing so detrimental.

 

[markbrumbaugh]

Only in America do people hate free health care. Only in America.

Forcing healthcare is not immoral. Jesus isn’t looking at my government or yours and saying “Giving everyone free health care? MORTAL SIN!!”

Why would anyone want people to pay a bill for medical treatment? My grandmother recently had eye surgery and didn’t pay a dime and no, she did not have to wait three lifetimes for it.

When I see the doctor, I just pay for the prescriptions and that’s it.

In those “socialist” countries like Canada, France, the UK, etc, there are no bankruptcies due to medical costs ever. Shouldn’t it be fantastic that there will be less bankruptcies?

FREE??? What in the world makes health care free? It costs a lot of training, equipment, and time. You think it is free only because someone has been robbed of their private property to pay for grandma. I can’t imagine the shallowness of thought behind comments like this.

But to answer your question…Who wouldn’t want free health care? Well here is a clue…it is the people who pay for it on behalf of themselves and others.

 

[royal_archer]

I wouldn’t call anyone paying the higher marginal tax rates “enslaved”. It is mostly the extreme rich, who let their money work for them, hide it in trusts etc. Oh poor them…

No it is only those whw work for a living who will have to pay. Those who have an abundance of free time or a wealth of other tallents and abilities will not be forced to contribute from their riches.

 

[Arandur]

Medicare is a Govenment program, but it is a lot more efficient than For Profit Health Insurance. It doesn’t pay ridiculous salaries to its executives, and their stockholders in turn do not benefit from denying health care to people. In most of the civilized/industrialized world, this would be criminal. If ours was really the best system, why is it no one else is trying to make their system more like what the Insurance Cartel likes best?

The simple answer should be obvious. People in power want more power–this is the constant danger of government. Other people think they can trust elected officials (while also saying they don’t trust them), thus willingly turn to government to solve problems, whether government actually solves them or not (more often making things worse).

The concept of subsidiarity actually has limited applicability to this debate. First it presumes the local operation to be competent, but when thousands of Americans are dying and/ or going bankrupt, that competence is not credible. Additionally, what about my wanting to help people in other states? When I know people in other places, even other continents, need help, why would I limit my concern to those nearest to me? The fact that others may be more responsible for them doesn’t mean that I should not care, or act. It seems that in many circumstances it is through my government that I can best help the most people in the most efficient manner.

This seems like an appeal that can be boiled down to the following two arguments:

1. There are problems with the current system, so we should jump up the ladder and have government solve those problems.
2. We want to help people in other places, so we should empower governments at higher levels to fix things for those people farther and farther out from my community.

Neither of these approaches is faithful to the principle of subsidiarity as I understand it. Simple answers:

1. All human systems have problems. We work to fix them at the lowest appropriate level, without abdicating our responsibilities to charity and community, and without violating freedoms, and in the most efficient and effective manners possible. All of these things mean federal government is a far distant last resort.
2. This is ultimately an argument, taken to its necessary conclusion, for totalitarian one world government. We want to help other people and fix their problems so we will set up governing institutions to rule over them and fix them. Wrong approach. Need I explain why it’s wrong? I think it’s self apparent.

 

[Arandur]

I wouldn’t call anyone paying the higher marginal tax rates “enslaved”. It is mostly the extreme rich, who let their money work for them, hide it in trusts etc. Oh poor them…

Two things.

1. The “enslaved” comment I think goes for health care professionals. There are, indeed, insidious measures in the massive health care bill that start us down the path of government effectively being able to force people with health care skills to provide services, with or without appropriate compensation. That’s enslavement.

That, by the way, is what we are claiming when we claim a “right” to health care–we are ultimately claiming the right to enslave the people who can provide that health care, forcing them to provide it under our terms.

1. As for taxes, let’s just tax all the “rich” (arbitrarily defined however we’d like) to the point of destroying their wealth and capital investment that employs people and innovates and increases productivity, eh?

Let’s just be leeches on on them, declaring some threshold by which people making less pay nothing in taxes, shall we? We already do that for some 30+% of the population, letting people who pay no taxes vote more benefits to themselves disproportionately. Taxation without representation in a new, modern, perverse way.

We could also just take this argument to its next consistent level and have everything provided for them for free without having to work, shall we? Like Pelosi just effectively said, quit your job, do what you want, we’ll provide for you.

“He who refuses to work shall not eat.” Who’s law do you want to obey? God’s or man’s?

 

[cynic]

1. As for taxes, let’s just tax all the “rich” (arbitrarily defined however we’d like) to the point of destroying their wealth and capital investment that employs people and innovates and increases productivity, eh?

So that’s happenning now then I suppose, the end is nigh.

The wealthy demand a disproportionate return on their investments, simultaneously keeping wages below where they should be.

We could also just take this argument to its next consistent level and have everything provided for them for free without having to work, shall we? Like Pelosi just effectively said, quit your job, do what you want, we’ll provide for you.

Life-saving health care is no more important than groceries? Conservatives want only a segment of the *working *population to be able to afford health care. It’s part of their whole ego thing. Cleaners and other low-paid employees need not apply.

 

[tjm190]

So that’s happenning now then I suppose, the end is nigh.

The wealthy demand a disproportionate return on their investments, simultaneously keeping wages below where they should be.

The return the rich get on their investment is between the investor and the firm/other entity- furthermore, there is no reason to believe the wealthy get a better deal then the guy with a 401k. And where exactly ‘should wages be’ and why?

Life-saving health care is no more important than groceries? Conservatives want only a segment of the *working *population to be able to afford health care. It’s part of their whole ego thing. Cleaners and other low-paid employees need not apply.

Our current healthcare system doesn’t have enough healthcare to around- money is just how the market rations care.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Two things.

“He who refuses to work shall not eat.” Who’s law do you want to obey? God’s or man’s?

That applysto group settings. Christian communities of that time were like the communes of recent times. Thats could apply to MANY ( I’m Not saying all) business owners. They sitback at their desk while us worker bees do the work and bring in his profits. I know Iv’e seen it with my better than 20/20 vision before.

 

[portarica]

Perhaps that money could be invested and doing good for our economy rather than put in trusts if the tax code didn’t make doing so detrimental.

The tax rate for unearned income and capital gains is close to the lowest it has been for a long time.

Yet when we had higher rates, especially on corporations, the economy grew at its fastest rates. Why? Because when the rates are higher, the corporations reinvested it in their companies and benefited from the cash flows from depreciation.

Now we have a class that don’t even want to pay the much lower rates and engage in every maneuver to avoid paying any possible taxes.

It is our present low tax rate that makes people not want to invest in building businesses etc.

Peace