Why do you think forced healthcare is immoral?

A few of these threads have been popping up since the passage of the healthcare bill, and I notice quite a few of you are upset over the mandate section of the bill.

I am curious if you think that it’s also immoral for the government to tax you in any way (re: being forced to purchase something), and if it’s immoral for the government to make you follow any other laws (re: forced charity).

If you think one is okay but not the other, why?

I believe it is unconstitutional for the US Federal Government to force the citizens to BUY anything and then, if they don’t buy, to fine them. People would object to this no matter what the government was trying to get us to buy.

And I believe charity ceases to be chairty if it is forced on those donating.

Unconstitutional and immoral are two different concepts.

And I believe charity ceases to be chairty if it is forced on those donating.

So Jesus told Jews who were obliged by law to carry a Roman soldiers armour for one mile not to do so?
No, he told them to carry it for an extra mile, as such supererogatory acts count as charity.

But not necessarily mutually exclusive.

I think it’s immoral since it is part of a greater plan by those who put it into effect. It’s going to be corrupt and ineffecient, and do little of what it’s touted to do. One of our local federal representatives said that everyone in America will get the same health care as members of Congress. Now seriously, who really believes that?

And that it will lower the deficit? Sure, for a couple years when we’re paying taxes for it, but nobody gets any benefits. Then, conveniently, when the authors are out of office, the **** hits the fan. If it was so great, so moral, why don’t the benefits start immediately?

What will happen is that it will end up costing way more than “expected”, and our taxes will be ever increasing to pay for this corrupt monstrocity. Moral? No. Not a sentance addressing tort reform, one of the major needs of health care reform.

Anyway, it’s tough to discuss without getting too political.

I think some of the other taxes are immoral also; Medicare and Medicade, for example. Social Security, too. These taxes are used to feed corruption, with only a small part of the money ever benefitting those whom these programs are intended to serve.

As well, any government program that spends us into debt is bound to collapse our economy sooner or later, and that is immoral. Ask our Grandchildren if they think their taxes-to-be are fair, when they’ll be seeing 50 or 60% of their income go to taxation.

So, I believe it’s a matte of both the way we are being taxed (forced to buy under penalty of fine) as well as **what **we are being taxed for that is immoral.

Yes, they are two different concepts. And we who are against Obama’s Health Care feel it is unconstitutional for the Federal Government to mandate its citizens to BUY health care and then be fined if they don’t. Not sure what happens if you don’t pay the fine. Prison?

The US is an extremely charitable nation, but we have certain laws and I, along with many others, would like to see them adhered to. There are many things wrong with this bill. Nancy Pelosi said something to the effect that we, the citizens, will know what is in it after it has been passed. Then there is the matter of bribes given to states for the votes for example $100,000,000 to Conn. to build a hospital. If this is such a great bill, why the bribes? We are dropping a trillion dollar plus debt onto our grandchildren. We will be enslaving out own kids to the state. We cannot sit by and allow that to happen.

I heard a progressive radio host stating the same argument, yet he changed his opinion when he heard that the requirement is being framed and implemented as a tax. Everyone is taxed, but if you buy a healthcare policy, the tax is waived. For the moment, setting aside whether I like the policy or not, that seems like it might be reasonable.

Is prison possible if you don’t comply? Yes it is. Just like it’s a possibility if you do not pay your federal income tax.

I also heard (and I do not know if this is completely correct), that any state can opt out of this entire mandated healthcare reform act… but if they do, they will lose lots of $$$ for Medicare programs. So, technically, states COULD opt out if they so chose.

I think unjust taxes are immoral. Catholic church clearly recognizes that there is such thing as unjust tax.

Here are some examples of unjust tax:

-taxes to fund public school system
-taxes to fund child ‘protective’ services
-taxes to fund useless gov’t agencies
-taxes to fund unreasonably large police force

So by your reckoning,it is ‘immoral’ to:

  1. educate everybody.
  2. have programs to monitor at risk children,And if necessary,remove them from negligent and/or dangerous environments.
    3)have an effective police force
    I am not sure what you mean by useless government agencies so you might want to elaborate.
    But from what I see,the end result of your ideas,would be having Children languish in unhealthy environments,crime sky-rocketing due to un-educated people with no job opportunities.To top off this dystopian nightmare,there would be no government agencies to correct or even hamper the situation.

I think education is the parents responsibilty, just like feeding, clothing, etc… There are already milions of people homeschooling with far superior results than public schools, why can’t everybody else do the same ? It’'s not your neighbour’s responsibility to pay for education of your children.

For child protective services crimes see cpscrimes.tripod.com

I am against excessive police force and not effective police force. There used to be a time when we had far fewer police officers and far less crime.

Charity is charity when it is done selflessly and not begrudgingly. God has bestowed on us something called FREE WILL. Big brother should have no say in how charitable we should be.

…err, right - which is where Jesus’ comments about supererogatory acts come in?

How come free will comes in when it’s charity but not when people want to exercise bodily autonomy?

Is it ‘forced healthcare’? I don’t think so.

Is it a right to health care? I think that it is a right to accessible health care.

Do you see the difference? Some folks in the U.S. can’t buy health care even if they have jobs, even if they are willing to pay for health insurance, because of pre-exisiting conditions. They can’t just forgo insurance and buy the health care they need to live, because it is priced out of their reach.

Some will respond with the “ER” being accessible to people in this situation. Well, the ER doesn’t treat chronic conditions. Is the ER going to serve for a diabetic’s 4-per-year doctor visits? Check the patient’s glucose monitoring history? Adjust their insulin requirements accordingly? Is an ER going to monitor someone’s cholesterol levels and statin regimen?

I don’t believe that I should pay for everyone’s health care. I do believe that I should help pay for everyone in the U.S. to have access to health care, via taxes. Then we could join all of the other countries in the civilized Western world in doing so. We in the U.S. seem to be the only country left that permits ridiculous injustices like I’ve described above. And hopefully we are going to fix that. :slight_smile:

Ella, I’m a conservative and against Obama’s health care. What is your reaction when you hear the following:

  1. Bribes to get the health care vote e.g. $100 million for a Conn. hospital, millions to LA., Corn Huskers pact, Florida Deal.

  2. Passing a bill without reading it.

  3. Going into a trillion dollar debt which will have to be paid by our grandchildren and their children and keeping in mind we are already in trillion dollar debt and possibly losing our rating.

  4. Have you asked your physician his opinion on how this will effect medicine in this country?

  5. Knowing that state health care has failed in Mass. and in Hawaii.

  6. Knowing that citizens of other countries with socialized medicine come to the US for care. If it is so good, why come here?

  7. Knowing that the bill also includes taxes on such things as tanning palors, and allows the feds to take over student loans. I understand there is also a push for college kids to have access to the food stamp program. Do you wonder what else is included in this bill?

  8. Being forced to buy a product by the government.

  9. Why did it not include tort reform?

  10. Why are we prohibited from buying insurance from any agency? Why not remove the barriers prohibiting sale of insurance across state lines?

Removing barriers of sale of insurance across state lines sounds like a solution. But- two problems come to mind:

  1. The ‘cheaper insurance’ in another state can simply raise prices when new customers come to market. Why would (random example) Utah’s insurance remain cheaper than (another random example) Michigan’s once they both had the same customer pool?
  2. The states regulate what insurance companies must cover. So if a customer in Michigan buys cheaper insurance in Utah, he or she cannot assume that the coverage that they receive in return is comparable. The policies in Utah might not have to cover certain things that Michigan law requires Michigan insurance companies to cover. And finding that out might come at a most inconvenient time for the customer.

I hope I answered some of your questions. I ask you in return- what is a diabetic supposed to do, if they lose their job and cannot find another job with company insurance? What is a diabetic supposed to do if they are self-employed, find out they have diabetes, and are dropped by their insurer?

I can’t speak for others, but my opposition is based on my belief that this health care legislation is a cover for more government interference in my life.

It’s rendering unto Caesar that which is *not *Caesar’s–including the will of the people.

My opposition is is also based on experience; government interference in anything drives up costs while reducing effectiveness, and health care is already expensive and ineffective enough.

Altho I have moved somewhat in my position on this issue, in regards to the particular bill in question, istm that the bill does *nothing *to address the *reasons *for high health care costs and will only aggravate those reasons to the point where we will end up with government-funded health care, a reduction in the quality of our health care, and extremely high costs for all.

I am not happy about the deceptiveness being practiced around this issue.

(And I believe that the US and the other industrialized nations with already-existing socialized medical care are all going to suffer massively in a few years as the demographic time bomb of the Baby Boomers getting older and needing more care is going to explode, causing rationing for all and enormous debt for the following generations.)

And this is the part that is immoral. People are being required to purchase health insurance at a yet-to-be determined cost. Without any real effort to control costs, that price tag is likely to jump by a great deal, especially in the beginning when a lot of people with existing health conditions enter the system. The poor are being exempted from the fine for non-purchase so many of them will likely choose not to pay for health care as they always have. Remember one of the largest sub-groups of the 30 million uninsured that we kept hearing about were the “young invincibles” who didn’t see health care as a priority expenditure, even when inexpensive employer paid plans were available. When the fine is less than the cost of insurance, those individuals will still choose to have more cash in thier pockets. And those are exactly the people the system needs to balance out - young. healthy, premium payers with lower health care needs.

Hospitals and states already have indigent health care systems (and it’s not just ER visits). Between the almost-poor who can’t afford the new health care and the 20 million who aren’t covered, we will still need indigent health care systems but have far fewer resources to fund them.

Moving to a public option would address some of this but according to at least some estimates a public option would just “move the bubble”. More of that original 30 million uninsured would be covered but there would be other groups left out. That’s not a moral option.

Oh, this is a great way of putting the concept! I have seen this happen in so many areas in which the government has involved itself. A very clear example is college education. Whenever I have tried to explain it, I have a wordy, somewhat unclear explanation.

It all comes down to the basic philosophical difference between Liberals and conservatives. Conservatives think the basis of charity is giving their money to support charitable causes. Liberals think the baiss of charity is taking money from other people, giving it to the charities of their choice and then boasting how much they “care”

Please provide the verse, not how you interpret it.

How come free will comes in when it’s charity but not when people want to exercise bodily autonomy?

It should be the people’s choice. Individuals have the right to being charitable in their own way, and living their own way.

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