The Morality of a Single Payer Health Care System


And it isn’t the role of government in a free society. For the vast majority of Americans, there is no need to dictate healthcare


First off, most people don’t need heart-lung transplants, so you’re arguing from an edge case. Second, a good health insurance plan, if bought into early, will take care of that. Third, GoFundMe and social media campaigns exist and are successful, not to mention charitable groups like Catholic Charities, St Jude’s, etc.

None of these have a 100% chance of success, of course. But single-payer will cause more cases of failure than the government getting out of the health care business in general.


Insurance is all about edge cases!!!

If bought into early. There are situations where this does not happen through no fault of the patient. Imagine a 5-year old kid with a congenital illness. Or imagine the case of a person who needs to move to a different state for a job, and sign up with a different insurer. There is no way any insurer will take on a pre-existing condition without a law that says they must.

There is no evidence that voluntary charity could ever cover as many people and as well as Medicare does now for old people. And saying that it will happen if taxes are reduced is just wishful thinking. It is more likely that the added cash in people’s pockets will be spent on jet skiis more than on nursing homes.


Straw man argument, since that is not the charge. The charge is they they would be unable to help to the extent needed.

See remark in previous post on jet skiis.

This is switching arguments. So you concede my point?

Those are not the only options for health insurance. There is also the option of covering all people with a certain minimum level of care. Not everyone will survive their illnesses, but at least they can be given a better chance than they would have gotten with no care at all.


I think you have a good point there. if Medicaid can be expanded to cover catastrophic health insurance for everyone, there would be a lot less justification for a separate system of national health care.


“People will die!” That is the refrain from people like Pelosi. That is a statement that if government doesn’t control healthcare people will die because the people would be unwilling to help. It is not a straw man. There is a greater chance that government will let people die through queuing and rationing. That is what happens with government dictated healthcare


I think you are mixing up responses. The response of mine that you quoted was to your claim that “It is a charge that Americans would intentionally turn their Backs on neighbors.” That was a straw man. You were probably confusing this exchange with the one with SuperLuigi’s remark “Everyone dies, Darklight…”


I agree that whatever plan is put forward that that plan must be fully funded. The taxpayers, healthy or not, would fund either plan through tax payments. Do you envision a single payer plan that collects “premiums” instead of taxes?

In free markets, those who demand more of a good or service usually pay more. How could premiums be structured to cause those who use less pay more, and those who use more pay less? Would not that be a welfare system which is exactly what Medicaid is?


No. I was responding to yours


Then your response made no sense.


I see the insurance bailout payments as an example where the program was not fully funded, so it goes on the books for future generations to cover.


Not a switch of arguments at all. Just listen to the language of your response:

Who said health insurance shouldn’t be offered? It is a continuation of the same straw man argument. Implied here is that health insurance won’t be offered without government.


The part that is a switch in arguments is when you said “And it isn’t the role of government in a free society.” We were not talking about the role of government when I said

This is a silly reason not to offer health insurance. The whole concept of insurance is built on charging everyone for what only a few will ultimately need. If we had insurance for things that everyone needs, it would not be insurance.

We were talking about whether or not Americans would step forward with charity sufficient to meet the need. You comment about the role of government is a free society does not address this question. That is why I called it a change in subject, which it is, since you made no attempt to prove that Americans would step forward and do that.

I don’t know which straw man argument you are talking about. It is true that I implied that sufficient health insurance will not be provided without government. But you are welcome to cite any example around the world where everyone has basic health care needs met without government involvement.


Seems Britain is struggling with the costs of supporting free medical tourism for the developing world.


Of course it is socialism, government control of the means of production.


No idea, but it completely controls an industry. Be it service or product, it is government control


I doubt the current Pope minds it too much. :smile:

He appears to be pretty on-board with the concept.


I don’t know the answer to any of these.
Was Charlie Gar Catholic? How about any of the obese and smokers they have targeted?
Does NHS pay for abortions or abortifacients? If so, any of those babies Catholic?


Vatican: Catholic Church ‘committed’ to universal healthcare in 2012.


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