The Morality of a Single Payer Health Care System


Universal doesn’t mean required, coerced , imposed.
Would I like to see everyone have it? Yes.
Should it be imposed at the point of the government gun? No
We do, after all, live in a free society.


I’ll ask you again: name a welfare program where you are required to pay in until age 65 before you receive?
Food Stamps?

You want to repeal B and D? Cool.
I don’t want any of it. But people have paid in for decades and they deserve the promised return or their money back.

I didn’t mention a contract. It was a promise, not made by a private citizen, but by the government of the United States.
Now, I know you think it okay for the government to make a promise, wrong and unconstitutional as it was, take the money from Americans and then renege on that promise. I don’t , because I find your approach far more like Bernie Madoff. Make a promise. Take the money. Renege.


You don’t have to pay in till 65 to get medicare. You need to get your facts straight.


I never made any promises.


You seem to be more concerned about individual freedoms than the common good and getting everyone the health care they need. Single payer health care, in principle, is an effort to do just that. Nothing I’ve heard proposed by you even comes close. And the only individual freedom of yours that would necessarily be abridged is your freedom to refrain from paying taxes. And before you start citing the HHS mandate or the UK’s NHS, remember I said in principle. There is nothing in the principle of single payer health insurance that necessitates the particular problems with Obamacare or the NHS of the UK.


So does the U.S.A. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) is a federal law that requires anyone coming to an emergency department to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay.

What is at issue is universal health insurance which is a financing issue. Since EMTALA remains an unfunded mandate, the hospitals are on the hook.

For instance, the hospital which cares for someone without insurance has some uncertainty of payment. With universal health insurance (aka single payer), the hospital has certainty of payment.

Presently, the hospital acts as a redistributor of wealth. The hospital schedule of rates for the uninsured is exaggerated in order to collect from those who can pay to subsidize those who cannot.


That’s not the only reason it’s exaggerated.

See “the Arab Sheik” problem. When a wealthy foreigner without insurance walks in for care, they want to be able to farm him for top dollar.


Not in it’s totality.


Right. Only for the old, the poor and veterans.


Yes this is true. And I am one of those Veterans that benefit from this partial Universal Health Care. And I have BCBS courtesy of work. VA files against BCBS. I go to the VA frequently, so by the time my wife goes to the doctor, the annual out of pocket has been satisfied. I pay nothing out of pocket what so ever. I don’t have the best care, but I have care. My wife has better care. I am on 10 different meds. If I was not a veteran, the meds alone would keep me in poverty.


600,000 people yearly have to file for bankruptsy due to medical conditions. That is unacceptable for the Richest Country in the World with the Richest People.


The vast majority of people do. And you know it.


The vast majority of other welfare recipients pay taxes as well, and you know it.


Do they have to pay in until they are 65 in order to collect? Am I right now at age 63 able to collect Medicare? No! Why? I’m not 65. How many WIC recipients have to wait until they are 65?


How many pay federal income taxes?


Clearly the majority. In some years they may not pay federal income tax, but in other years they will. Income tends to be volatile. On the other hand, a nonworking spouse pays nothing and gets both medicare and social security. That is clearly a welfare leech. No other way to explain it.


So, don’t paint with a broad brush. Instead of slandering all recipients, the ones who have paid in for 40 years, make your case against the abuse of the system made possible by politicians trying to buy votes with other people’s money. You and I would actually agree


Here’s an interesting article. It warns about the penalties for delaying enrollment in Medicare. In other words, a “welfare” program that punishes a person for putting off “being a leech”.


Extreme abuse of the term “in other words.”


Yeah, welfare doesn’t really apply, does it?

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