Do you think the government should take care of people with "pre-existing medical conditions?


And both aren’t teaching of Jesus, which was the original claim. If you’re correct that Jesus endorsed involuntary morality over voluntary morality then the entire faith falls apart as everyone is literally forced into heaven since everyone has no choice but to do good and free will doesn’t exist


But the issue is that this is more than a matter of principle, aren’t people’s very lives at stake here? At least, implement a floor of coverage to provide universal access to a basic level of care even they’re modest plans. There are people who could really use help and telling them to rely on a charity which may not yet exist or even if it does exist (there are free clinics out there and we could theoretically expand community health centers) can’t help them isn’t exactly a comforting or reassuring answer.


In any case,it applies to the living…
It is kind of the minimum,helping each other live.
Why forced? It is perhaps the most basic and natural.
It is humanity. Not ideologies.


No, I don’t. I think the local community should take care of them via opportunities like health saving funds, etc.

Ideally, local community would mean church, civic organizations, etc. However, if govt needs to be involved, then it should the local govt, county govts and state govts. But not the federal.

I don’t want people on the other side the continent or people who live differently from me dictating what treatment I’m eligible for.


No one disputes that “there comes a point.” The question is exactly where that point is and what level of provided health care is appropriate.


Does your “etc.” include universal coverage for basic care regardless of resources? If not, then it is inadequate.

Ideally, no one would get sick. But here we are…

That’s fine. A state run universal health insurance program for basic care would make it unnecessary for the federal government to be involved.


For the same reason that you wouldn’t pass a law prohibiting a fire insurance provider from discriminating against pre-existing conditions.


This is a key point. Nothing is ever enough. We have limited resources. Some people will always have more and get more than others. If the government is in charge then healthcare is a political decision. There will still not be enough and some will get more than others.

The government declared war on poverty before I was born. They lost. They should have listened to Jesus.

It is. But it is equally wishful to think that if need grew the state would cover it.

This may be true but it points out something important. We in the US live in a democracy. If you are saying that most people are selfish and would spend the money on themselves then you are saying most voters since they are most people. How is it then as individuals most people are selfish when it comes to things like their money and charity but not selfish when it comes to voting?

In other words you may be right. And if so I have no reason to believe that any plan put forth to get the state involved would actually help people. I’d believe that it is popular because most people are selfish and the plan benefits them. So while the rhetoric might be about helping people it is just a cover for the truth which is that it benefits them. The benefit might be getting something for nothing or, as it is in politics, getting the government to steal from someone else and give to you.

So, are you correct that most people are selfish?


The transparency pledge got ditched in the first few months of office. Pass it to see what is in it shows how much of a banana republic we have become. The laws are so big there is no way the man voting on it can know what he is voting for. In my experience lots of words are usually bad. It is, ironically, often a way of wing unclear.

Would it work the the state run schools which are extremely expensive and produce kids who don’t have a basic education? What would that look like in healthcare?


As a matter of fact, state run public schools have produced the most educated populations in the history of the world. Nothing else even comes close. Individual private schools have done well to educate a very few people. But they have never educated even half as many children as the public schools do. So their SAT scores for those few who do attend is no indication they could take on the job of educating the entire nation. (Or any nation. Look around. Try to find an example of a nation with top-rated education that is not primarily public school educated.)


Possibly we can safely say that providing women with free abortifacients and providing post-menopausal women with prenatal coverage is beyond “appropriate”. And yet, that’s what we have with Obamacare and more.


Of course the state run schools do produce an enormous quantity of students and some get some sort of education. When the state takes over an industry this is to be expected. But the quality of that education is the problem. There are many students who graduate and yet aren’t educated. Still many and maybe most of the top leaders in society attended private schools.


So the question is do we want an educational system that educates everyone, or do we want an educational system that does a better job educating a small fraction of the population and ignoring the rest? The Christian concept of justice and the common good would argue for the former.

The main limitation on the quality of public school education is the fact that they must educate every child. It is not the fact that it is government run as opposed to privately run. The only reason private schools sometimes do better is that they don’t have to educate so many. The private school model has never been scaled up to anywhere near the level of the public schools. If they did, they would experience similar limitations.


Funny I see those who don’t want the government involved as really saying I have the healthcare I need and don’t want to pay more taxes so I don’t care if anybody else has the healthcare they need.


The question is too broad. What is the “basic” level of health care that every person “deserves”?


If that is to be it should be local government that would help. We have given up our local government to the swan song of huge “mother government”. This is not what a Republic does.


The public system is failing miserably. In addition, they will only teach partial truths and are indoctrinating.


The question of what constitutes basic level of health care is debatable. The fact that there is a basic level of health care that everyone deserves is not. We should not let the imprecision of the obligation prevent us from seeing that there is an obligation.


There is no reason why abortifacients and birth control needs to be part of universal health care. That is why I have always argued for the general concept of universal health care as it might be rather than for a specific implementation of it, such as Obamacare.


The nature of the obligation changes depending on what we view as the “basic” level that everyone “deserves”. Some would say that it is simply a warm bed and pain management. Some would say emergency services. Some would say it is equal to what one would be able to afford with a mid-level 21st century health-insurance plan. Some say it is whatever medication, surgery, or care the person needs and is medically available.

It is not enough to say “everyone deserves a basic level of care” and not define what constitutes a basic level of care.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit