If the teaching of Jesus (and the Church) is inconsistent with the idea of government-provided, or subsidized, health insurance (and care), please point us to the Church’s condemnation of the health insurance systems of all of the world’s developed nations (except the United States). Or, for that matter, the Church’s endorsement of the US system as morally superior to those of Europe and Canada.
they dont need to spent it all on charity
All need not give. Just enough to help those in need.
Back to previous point - they’d give a larger portion if they had more of their own money to give.
Again, those are exceptions. The vast majority of donors give to help those in legitimate need.
That’s one way to look at it, but many look at it as “why get insurance?” or under the rules you mentioned “I’ll wait until the last possible minute to get it”, the point is it incentivizes irresponsiblity among those who can afford insurance by either not getting insurance or waiting until last minute to get it when they previously could afford it
circular logic - more would do it if government wasn’t doing it since if government wasn’t doing it they’d be taxed less which means they’d have more $$ to do it with
I guess I’m not as optimistic as you. I don’t believe that the world, or this country, would suddenly become a charitable paradise, with the needs of all provided for, if only we repealed the Sixteenth Amendment.
Because that’s never happened in the history of the world, no matter what income tax rates were.
Were the needs of all provided for before we passed the income tax amendment?
Under that logic, any system with sufficient charity would incentivize not getting care. “I can get private donations if I get sick” is probably even more of an incentive to not worry about insurance.
I don’t get this insistence that human nature will magically change if the government just butts out. People who already have more than enough to spare don’t give enough. It’s not like having more excess money is suddenly going to change that. It’s not like places or times where the government stayed out have been paradises where everyone was cared for. In fact government regulations were introduced because private efforts left people to suffer and die.
Sixteenth amendment was passed based on a fraud. During Prohibition debate, Government realized that they collected 80% of their revenue on alcohol tax, so realized that if alcohol was banned, they’d lose 80% of their revenue. Hence , as a condition for permitting Alcohol to be banned, they introduced 16th amendment income tax as means to get that lost revenue via. income tax.
But once alcohol was re-legalized, they left that Sixteenth amendment in place! So they then started to collect alcohol tax AND personal income tax! Double taxing the citizenry. Hence the fraud.
All of that may or may not be true, but it doesn’t address my point.
No, because private charities are very strict about who they help. Hence less fraud and abuse. ANd hence why they’re far superior than Government at helping the (actual) poor and needy.
You don’t spend more money when you have more money to spend? That’s just plain logic 101.
Its not the needs of all being covered. Its about the needs of more being covered than under Government, which is 100% true. Government has historic track record of failure helping poor.
Look at “War on POverty” = after 50 years and $21 trillion, the poverty rate increased from 27% to 29%!
The logic there is more like “I don’t spend more money in this one specific category when I have more money to spend.” Most people are more likely to spend that money on a new car or a nice vacation rather than on helping those in need.
It’s not like the government is just handing out free money to anyone. As an aside, I also have a lot of concerns about private charity. A lot of times the strict rules mean people who need it can’t get help, and it’s more vulnerable to personal biases.
I don’t know that people aren’t willing to contribute. I do know the government consumer a lot of our wealth. If we had the oppressive government of King George we’d be paying only 3% in taxes. That would give people a lot of money to donate. It is not fair to have the state steal so much money and then say there isn’t enough charity. People’s money for charity is picked from their pocket.
There are basically enough beds for people’s needs at all hospitals. I’m pretty sure every hospital has an assistance program.
No, because most people aren’t donating $20,000 (cost of new car).
Not intentionally but it does happen on a massive scale. Practically every election its a massive issue, we all hear the phrase “waste, fraud and abuse” which we wouldn’t even hear if it wasn’t a huge issue.
@Aquinas11, how would you help improve the health care system for those such as the working class, those who are in an economically precarious situation (paycheck to paycheck), one crisis away from the streets and simply may not have the disposable income to pay for their own medical care whether it is through low income, high living costs or costly medical issues? In a way, doesn’t single payer work, because the middle class (and maybe even the rich) may use the same public system as the poor and working classes thus ensuring a level of quality control since they’re all in it together, (plus the simplicity of pooling resources)?
Private charities. They are far more efficient at helping poor than government. Far less fraud, abuse, far less inefficiency.
Stop taxing people so much so they can donate to private charities and then have the private charities cover those people who legitimately can’t afford insurance. Wealthy business people would do that because its a big marketing benefit for them - people will more likely do business with businesses that donate to charity than those who dont’. Many businesses today want to donate to private charity but are so overtaxed they can’t afford to donate to private charity, many are so overtaxed they are shutting down their business or having to take mortgages on their home.
I agree that from a moral standpoint we need to take care of the sick. As a Christian I contribute to organizations that do just that. The question was about the government, and pre-existing conditions. My understanding, is it’s the equivalent of buying car insurance the day after a car accident and having it covered. People can purchase health insurance after they break their arms or find out they have cancer and it will be paid for.
It is charitable and loving but unfortunately, financially unsustainable. A system that’s unsustainable isn’t good for anyone.
And if the charitable sector is not enough? And even if people do give, what if it is not enough? Additionally, it takes time to change a culture, society goes on but individual people simply don’t have time for that.
Maybe there’s a more palatable third-way, like free Nursing/Med School (or whatever institution they need to go to like Graduate School for therapists) and career pathways for those willing to provide a measure of indigent care (like a third to half of a caseload or focusing on caring for the uninsured and underinsured for the first ten years of their career) as well as public aid for charity hospitals and community health centers to target those in need?
If its not enough, then that need (of it not being enough) will itself fuel more donations. Its a self-feeding system. The donations help the donor (spiritually giving and for business owners, the marketing) and the donee (receives help) and if there is a shortfall in donations that will just attract more donors who benefit from making donations. Plus, the key point is that individual and corporate donors will have far more money to donate since will be paying far less taxes.
Besides, if we’'re really using “enough” as a standard, then the Government programs wouldn’t meet that since clearly many people dont get Health care (even if they’re provided “coverage” which can give them many month wait for care)
Thank you for that clarification on whom you were speaking with njlisa, as I can see now you couldn’t address the above situation to all Canadians as we both know. But, thank you.
This is just wishful thinking.
yes. Good point.