"these people"? :freak:
The Case Against Universal Healthcare
- Thread starter lovemeorhateme
- Start date
"these people"? :freak:
lovemeorhateme
Well-known member
I agree that the NHS isn't the only way to do it, and indeed I would also say the NHS isn't perfect. But I would argue that it's better than this private mess in the US.
The stereotype of the American Christian is that they must be pro-gun, anti-welfare, anti-universal healthcare and anti anything which might be considered even slightly socialist. Surprising, considering theologian C.S Lewis once said that a Christian economic system would be closer to socialism than the capitalist system we currently have.
lovemeorhateme
Well-known member
In the UK it's very rare to meet someone who has purchased private health insurance. Of course it is there should someone want to, but most don't see the need to.
And how inaccurate do you consider this stereotype to be?:chuckle:
lovemeorhateme
Well-known member
It baffles me. I'm not sure what else to say. As a Christian, I believe in these things as a matter of social justice. That a Christian would argue against them for the sake of having more money leaves me with a feeling of bemusement.
lovemeorhateme
Well-known member
Based on personal experience of conversing with American Christians, it seems to be more accurate than I would like it to be!
lain:absent a medical emergency (for which everybody in the united states is covered) health care ranks far behind other essential services for my well being
why shouldn't i expect the government to provide me with food, housing, clothing, transportation, etc before providing me with health care?
Well, the US has been doing austerity of a sort for the last 30 years or so, cutting taxes and spending (except on the military and a couple of things that are considered "proper" by conservatives), reducing the federal payroll. So it's been pretty hard to move even the most basic, obviously beneficial improvements through Congress. Until Obamacare was passed, it was completely legal for an insurance company to collect dues for a lifetime, and then for a person to get sick and actually need their insurance, and be dropped from it.
That stereotype is pretty accurate, for some. And the others usually get drowned out.
If you have trouble securing food or housing, there are various government programs to help you get them. I'm not aware of anything to help you get clothing that's publicly funded, but I actually think it would be a pretty good idea.
it's not talked about much in canada either, but it came out in a poltical shake-up last year when somebody was removed from office and it came out that they would suffer from losing their governmentally-provided additional coverage
the more i looked into it, the more i realized that those who could manage to have additional coverage, did
Ultimately it comes down to a few things.
One, greed. You're right--there are some people who simply can't abide the idea of "paying for someone else's health care," which is foolish (you pay for someone else's missile defense too, for that matter) as much as it is money-grubbing and ridiculous (someone else would be paying for yours too, for that matter).
Two, a misplaced sense of "freedom." Meaning that if one reckless idiot wants to live without insurance they'll insist on forcing everyone else in need of living without it, too.
Three, a kind of uniquely American evangelical Social Darwinism is at work that scorns the poor, sneers at the needy, assumes the worst about human nature, and inflicts the resulting misanthropy on the very people who need the most help.
Fourth, a basic misunderstanding of what universal healthcare actually is. Versus what we're paying for in taxes already--which should appall anyone with a pulse--there is no moral downside whatsoever to providing this as a service. Some people would seriously prefer cutting their nose to spite their face.
I could go on, but that's a start. There's a sickness at work.
and if you have trouble securing medical care, there are various existing government programs to help you get them
Such as?
medicare, medicaid, free clinics, non-profit hospitals that won't turn away anybody in need, regardless of ability to pay
PureX
Well-known member
That is the bottom line. But it's an awfully complicated psychological knot to untangle involving authoritarianism, religious fantasy, ego-obsession, and general paranoia. It's quite a cocktail of fear, anger, resentment, and dysfunction all being preached and practices as a religion.
linger:
lovemeorhateme
Well-known member
What I don't understand is how people see this as so much different from paying for insurance. With insurance they pay the company though they may barely even need to use their policy. It's just supposed to be there for them when they are sick (if the insurance company doesn't try and worm its way out of paying a claim). Inevitably with insurance, some people will end up claiming more than they have paid in. That means those who haven't needed to claim are paying for somebody else's healthcare, right? How is that so different from universal healthcare? The difference is that one pays the government as their insurance rather than a private, for profit company and everyone is covered. This system also helps prevent profit-driven companies from looking for any way to deny someone's insurance claim.
I don't understand how many fail to see that.
Freedom seems to mean something different in the US compared to here in the UK and Europe.
Where does this actually come from? Why are those who are supposed to be believers in God and in the Bible so indifferent to the plight of the poor? I just cannot understand. In the UK Christians were at the forefront of social reform.
How do you think this sickness is best combated?
A patchwork of solutions targeted at different groups of people, that fail to comprehensively prevent people from going uncovered or control costs. Health care is still the largest cause of personal bankruptcy.