Affordable Health Care is a Christian Act - Page 21

ACCT · #**301** Apr 21, '12, 6:50 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobCatholic

So how close to totalitarianism should we be going? Tell me. Where do we draw the line? What human rights are optional and that we should surrender to the State? I don't worship the government so I am having trouble understanding why we should surrender more rights to the state.

My point is we should be moving AWAY from totalitarianism, not toward it like a moth to a flame.

ACCT · #**302** Apr 21, '12, 6:51 am

Milton Friedman’s conclusion in his book, Free to Choose.

“The two ideas of human freedom and economic freedom working together came to their greatest fruition in the United States…We have been forgetting the basic truth that the greatest threat to human freedom is the concentration of power, whether in the hands of government or anyone else. We have persuaded ourselves that it is safe to grant power, provided it is for good purposes.”

“We are again recognizing the dangers of an over-governed society, coming to understand that good objectives can be perverted by bad means, that reliance on the freedom of people to control their own lives in accordance with their own values is the surest way to achieve the full potential of a great society.”

When you have a monopoly, prices go up and service goes down. Monopolies come from the government. The government now has a monopoly with Obama Care. This problem with high health care costs started with government intrusion into health care. Now the government wants to "solve" the problem that government created! The government is an incompetent administrator.

Listener · #**303** Apr 21, '12, 11:32 am

I spent most of my life worrying about what we would do if we lost our jobs. How could we ever afford medical insurance? If we had a medical catastrophe with no insurance, we could lose all our savings plus our house.

Now that I'm past 65, I'm enrolled in an "evil" government program, It is called Medicare. Was I forced to join? No, I could have opted out if I had wanted to. Am I happy? I have never been happier in my life! I just love seeing my bills roll through Medicare and then through to my secondary insurance! I love the statement that says "YOUR BALANCE IS ZERO!"

I'm just wondering why I had to wait 65 years to enjoy this much peace of mind.

Andromedus · #**304** Apr 21, '12, 12:30 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobCatholic

So how close to totalitarianism should we be going? Tell me. Where do we draw the line? What human rights are optional and that we should surrender to the State? I don't worship the government so I am having trouble understanding why we should surrender more rights to the state.

My point is we should be moving AWAY from totalitarianism, not toward it like a moth to a flame.

Is Anarchism something you are fond of? Because what you said now could be seen as an argument for Anarchism, an opinion not many in the Church think is correct.

I don't know exactly where we exactly should draw the line but I am sure that if we begun to live in a totalitarian society we have passed it long ago. You however seem to think that the line comes with national health care and I can respect that opinion if you really believe that is true but I don't share your opinion if you do. Perhaps you think that you already have crossed the line? Nevertheless I think it is a difficult question to answer. As for your question about human rights it depends on what you count as human rights, those who think it is okay to have an abortion says sometimes that it is a human right to kill unborn children. I am not implying in any way that you would support something like that, I just took it as an example as something some people believe is a human right. I believe however that if you can you should help those less fortunate than yourself to have a decent health care, that is definitely a right. Then you can of course discuss how this health care should be provided to people. Some people think the better alternative is that the state should provide it and some others refers to charity.

sedonaman · #**305** Apr 21, '12, 12:37 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Listener

...I'm just wondering why I had to wait 65 years to enjoy this much peace of mind.

If you are a man born around 1940, you were not expected to live long enough to collect any benefits. IOW, you were expected to die at the switch.

sedonaman · #**306** Apr 21, '12, 12:56 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andromedus

... Perhaps you think that you already have crossed the line?

Personally, I think we crossed the line sometime in the 1960s when peoples' attitudes changed from wanting to make a contribution to society to one of entitlement. The military draft is a good example. Anti-draft demonstrators took to the streets demanding an end to an immoral war; but when the draft was eliminated, the anti-war protests evaporated.

Quote:

... Some people think the better alternative is that the state should provide it and some others refers to charity.

The state is not some Santa Clause with magical powers to provide for everyone's wants and needs. It has no money that it doesn't get from the people.

There is socialized medicine in the military, at least when I was in. Medical treatment was provided to the service member and his dependents at no cost to him. Sick bay was always full every day with small kids. If Johnny had the sniffles, Mom took him to sick call. And why not? It was free [to them, anyway]. So demand explodes when someone else is paying for it.

Then there was the military base in Florida where the medic was filled up with retirees every Thursday morning. Did everyone wait until Thursday to seek medical attention? Of course not. It was an informal social meeting place. People can become very creative consumers when they don't have to pay the price.

Ender · #**307** Apr 21, '12, 2:04 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Listener

I spent most of my life worrying about what we would do if we lost our jobs. How could we ever afford medical insurance? If we had a medical catastrophe with no insurance, we could lose all our savings plus our house.

Now that I'm past 65, I'm enrolled in an "evil" government program, It is called Medicare. Was I forced to join? No, I could have opted out if I had wanted to. Am I happy? I have never been happier in my life! I just love seeing my bills roll through Medicare and then through to my secondary insurance! I love the statement that says "YOUR BALANCE IS ZERO!"

I'm just wondering why I had to wait 65 years to enjoy this much peace of mind.

That Medicare is a good deal for you says nothing about whether it is a good deal for all those who have to take care of themselves and their families ... as well as pay for your medical coverage. Are you really unaware that your benefits come at someone else's expense?

Ender

LeafByNiggle · #**308** Apr 21, '12, 2:16 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ender

. Are you really unaware that your benefits come at someone else's expense?

Ender

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with benefits coming at someone else's expense. That is the principle unlying the concept of insurance. Those that are lucky enough not to need the benefits pay for those that do. The injustice of it, if there is injustice, would come from a situation where someone's chances of needing the benefits are not commensurate with the premium they pay. And you might make such an argument in the case of Medicare by pointing out that those who smoke pay the same premium as those who do not smoke, yet they stand a higher chance of using Medicare benefits. But the case for injustice is not as obvious as you implied.

The GreyPilgrim · #**309** Apr 21, '12, 2:28 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andromedus

Is Anarchism something you are fond of? Because what you said now could be seen as an argument for Anarchism, an opinion not many in the Church think is correct.

I don't know exactly where we exactly should draw the line but I am sure that if we begun to live in a totalitarian society we have passed it long ago. You however seem to think that the line comes with national health care and I can respect that opinion if you really believe that is true but I don't share your opinion if you do. Perhaps you think that you already have crossed the line? Nevertheless I think it is a difficult question to answer. As for your question about human rights it depends on what you count as human rights, those who think it is okay to have an abortion says sometimes that it is a human right to kill unborn children. I am not implying in any way that you would support something like that, I just took it as an example as something some people believe is a human right. I believe however that if you can you should help those less fortunate than yourself to have a decent health care, that is definitely a right. Then you can of course discuss how this health care should be provided to people. Some people think the better alternative is that the state should provide it and some others refers to charity.

I think Bob's concern, and mine as well, is that when you grant a government the ability to provide care to anyone on their dime you implicitly give that same government the right to dictate to you and everyone how you live your life, because any resulting health issues resulting from decisions that you make that government has to pay for. That is the logical consequence of socialized care, the same as care rationing based on cost-benefit analysis and denial of proceedures based on arbitrary criteria. Aside from all this is tthe fact that the law itself is utterly unconstitutional because the government cannot force you to buy anything, especially when the product is being sold by that very same government.

Ender · #**310** Apr 21, '12, 2:55 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeafByNiggle

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with benefits coming at someone else's expense. That is the principle underlying the concept of insurance.

The principle underlying the concept of insurance is shared risk. The principle underlying Medicare is you pay my expenses today and hope that someone else can pay your expenses in the future. We share nothing at all. Beyond that, all other forms of insurance are purchased at the discretion of the consumer. There is no choice with Medicare: you pay my costs whether you choose to or not. I am a little less inclined to find nothing wrong in forcing person A to pay for benefits enjoyed by person B.

Ender

Listener · #**311** Apr 21, '12, 3:53 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ender

That Medicare is a good deal for you says nothing about whether it is a good deal for all those who have to take care of themselves and their families ... as well as pay for your medical coverage. Are you really unaware that your benefits come at someone else's expense?

Ender

I think you must be unaware that much of this comes at our expense. My husband and I paid almost $2500 for our Part B Medicare premiums last year. This is in addition to our supplementary medical and dental insurance, which came to almost $3400. This adds up to almost $5900 that we paid for out of our own pockets. This is a lot of money when you're living on Social Security and a small pension. I think that you're not considering all of the years and years that my husband and I worked our tails off, paying into the system so that our parents' generation was able to enjoy Medicare. That, also, was a gift from God. I think that both we and our late parents would have been living on the street if their medical bills had to be paid out of their pockets or ours. I also sincerely hope that this coverage will be there for the younger generation.

sedonaman · #**312** Apr 21, '12, 3:55 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ender

... Are you really unaware that your benefits come at someone else's expense?

Ender

Is that true, or is he just realizing a return on his investment?

Wiljo2050 · #**313** Apr 21, '12, 6:52 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate13

What proof do you have that nationalizing health care is the best response to the problem? Why is it necessary for the government to cover everyone's health insurance and not just the needy you have pointed out? A nationalized health care system seems as silly a solution as a national food stamp program where everyone receives food stamps regardless of whether they need them. I'd also add that a nationalized health care system does nobody any good if the country goes bankrupt in its attempt to pay for it.

Could you explain what you find wrong with the Republican plan to form health savings accounts and why you find that to be immoral?

Wiljo2050 · #**314** Apr 21, '12, 6:58 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate13

What proof do you have that nationalizing health care is the best response to the problem? Why is it necessary for the government to cover everyone's health insurance and not just the needy you have pointed out? A nationalized health care system seems as silly a solution as a national food stamp program where everyone receives food stamps regardless of whether they need them. I'd also add that a nationalized health care system does nobody any good if the country goes bankrupt in its attempt to pay for it.

Could you explain what you find wrong with the Republican plan to form health savings accounts and why you find that to be immoral?

mitex · #**315** Apr 21, '12, 6:58 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ender

And while I disagree with pretty much everything you say here everyone should at a minimum recognize that neither your position nor mine is more Christian than the other. What a Christian position requires is that we do what we think is best for all involved and while I may believe your solution would be catastrophic it is not immoral to be wrong. It is reasonable to argue that Obamacare will or won't work but it is meaningless to argue that supporting or opposing it is either a moral or an immoral act.

Ender

What do you propose? Free markets? Because we've had that for two hundred years and health care is broken. 50 million people without care.

Cancer patients dying without treatment. Heart transplant patients dying while awaiting the results of a silly fundraiser to save them.

No Ender the Bishops are clear there needs to be universal access. And not by free markets either.

Free market medicine and healthcare are incompatible with the Christian faith. Jesus didn't charge for healing and neither should we.