The Case Against Universal Healthcare

[PureX]

Remember when there was no government and the toughest, most brutal humans simply took whatever they wanted from everyone else? Because that's exactly what capitalism becomes and rewards when it's not being governed.

 

[Tinark]

You are confused. You would not be "paying for someone else's health problems". You would be paying into a system that would then cover your own health, and your family's health, for life. That's exactly what you already do with health insurance.

This can't be emphasized enough: it's exactly what you already do, except, since we would all pay into the same system under UHC, things like genetic luck of the draw and pre-existing conditions would not screw one out of the ability to obtain care or incur massive additional premiums. It reduces luck as a factor in life in a significant way.

And to the people who say that eating big macs or drinking beer or not exercising, etc., should have to pay for their own care, when was the last time an insurance company followed you around to determine what your exercise routine was like and to see how much alcohol you purchase and to see what kinds of foods you are eating, in order to make you pay for it? Since they don't do that, these people are not paying anything extra anyway - the cost of their habits is already being spread out to everyone else in the health insurance premiums they are being charged. And if you think they should do that, that's really creepy.

 

[Nick M]

Remember when there was no government and the toughest, most brutal humans simply took whatever they wanted from everyone else?

That is called stealing. Or socialism. Because the only thing strong enough to take everything is a government.

 

[Tinark]

That is called stealing. Or socialism. Because the only thing strong enough to take everything is a government.

And the only thing strong enough to protect everything is a government.

 

[Tinark]

Not every problem, but quite a few, actually (see the following infographic):

Spoiler

 

[oatmeal]

In the past I've always been an advocate for universal healthcare here on TOL as many of you know. Coming from a country which has universal healthcare, it baffles me that so many would be against such a system.

Instead of presenting the case here as to why I believe in universal healthcare, I thought it would make a more interesting thread to invite those of you who disagree with universal healthcare to present your case as to why you believe it is wrong.

What do you believe about the principle of healthcare which is free to all at point of need? Why do you have that belief? Do you believe that those who cannot afford it should be entitled to less healthcare than those who can? What do you believe is the correct Christian view on it?

Where in scripture does it say you have a right to "free" health care that is not your choice?

If you want to pay for health insurance that is your business, but if you are not willing to pay for it, you should not get it.

If you pay less for health care, you should get less health care.

If do not pay for health care, you should not get health care.

Either that or believe I Peter 2:24.

Either by whose stripes you were healed or God lied.

God says you were already healed, why is not God our primary health care?

If your believing is not enough, go see a doctor, but not for free.

You get what you pay for.

No more, no less.

 

[lovemeorhateme]

Where in scripture does it say you have a right to "free" health care that is not your choice?

If you want to pay for health insurance that is your business, but if you are not willing to pay for it, you should not get it.

If you pay less for health care, you should get less health care.

If do not pay for health care, you should not get health care.

Either that or believe I Peter 2:24.

Either by whose stripes you were healed or God lied.

God says you were already healed, why is not God our primary health care?

If your believing is not enough, go see a doctor, but not for free.

You get what you pay for.

No more, no less.

We are talking about a system which is funded differently. I pay my taxes which means I've paid into a system that gives both me and everyone else equal entitlement to the healthcare we need. The principle of having compassion on the poor and helping those in need is found throughout the Bible. I couldn't give a rip if someone gets healthcare who hasn't paid anything in to the system - if they need help they need it. I'm not cold, heartless or callous enough to say 'let them suffer' or 'they can't afford their treatment? Tough!'

There is no Biblical case against universal healthcare whatsoever. Need I also remind you that Luke was a doctor? And indeed by His stripes we are healed - spiritually. There is no guarantee of physical healing for anyone. If your child was sick, would you take them to see the doctor or just 'pray the sickness away?'

 

[Tinark]

Where in scripture does it say you have a right to "free" health care that is not your choice?

If you want to pay for health insurance that is your business, but if you are not willing to pay for it, you should not get it.

If you pay less for health care, you should get less health care.

If do not pay for health care, you should not get health care.

Either that or believe I Peter 2:24.

Either by whose stripes you were healed or God lied.

God says you were already healed, why is not God our primary health care?

If your believing is not enough, go see a doctor, but not for free.

You get what you pay for.

No more, no less.

And those who can't afford care might as well pay for one of these, right?

 

[rocketman]

Thank you for your explanation. I have just a few questions:

I didn't say you would agree with me...:e4e:

Do you think that as Christians we have the moral obligation to help those in need?

I do, and I pay a tidy sum in taxes to provide for the endless flow of social programs which also includes healthcare to the indigent, feeding the hungry, housing,etc...and what I give to charity as well.

Change health service for fire service. Do you think you should have to pay for the fire service that you don't use if you never have a fire?

I already pay for that as well in property taxes.

Do you feel it's wrong that your taxes are paying the fire service to put out someone else's fire?

Really, I look at fire & police as insurance and again I pay taxes for that service...do you see the trend here, I pay for all these things already but, if I want something better than what the government offers I want the ability (liberty) to opt out and use my money for the health care coverage that I want, not some convoluted government issued cookie cutter plan...basically I want to be in control of my options not the government. Given that the government cannot run a hot dog stand efficiently, I sure as heck don't want them attempting to manage my health care. One only has to look at exhibit "A" the VA (Veterans Administration) the current government run healthcare plan to know that the government should not be in the health care business.

Finally, do you honestly believe that those who can afford it should be entitled to better healthcare and those who can't should be denied healthcare?

Qualify your statement "better healthcare", do you mean better as in quality, or do you mean better as what is covered for what you are willing to pay? I believe in the U.S. you will be hard pressed to find substandard coverage anywhere, the U.S. has a excellent crop of healthcare workers, facilities, etc so I personally do not believe (except isolated cases) that any health care professional gives a level of quality care based upon social status. Do I believe that I should be able to buy a better plan than the next guy if I can afford it? yes, I do...after all, I am paying for it, I am getting exactly what I bargained for. A perfect example is being able to see a specialist, many plans require a referral from your doctor to see a specialist, the plan I have I have the liberty to see a specialist without a referral from anyone.This is an option that I have purchased and yes, I believe I should have that liberty if I am able to afford to pay for it.

Edit: I would just like to echo the comments of others here that the UK is not a socialist country. We may have a government which has some policies which may be considered socialist by some, but this is definitely not a socialist country.

I did not mean to offend, and yes universal healthcare IMO is a socialist policy. It is a service that I am being forced to pay for that I may not want, liberty allows me to make the choice instead of insatiable money grubbing government politicians telling me what I will pay for, and what I might get in return. I disagree with social security as well, this like everything the government touches is in deep trouble because legislators have robbed it blind...it is a horrible investment of money, a ponzi scheme of epic proportion.

 

[Tinark]

One only has to look at exhibit "A" the VA (Veterans Administration) the current government run healthcare plan to know that the government should not be in the health care business.

Do you understand that it is possible to have a UHC system where the government pays the bills like an insurance company, but doesn't actually manage the healthcare facilities like the hospitals and the clinics?

We are simply talking about the government replacing the health insurance companies, and the taxes replacing health insurance premiums. Not talking about the government taking over everything.

Therefore, bringing up the VA is a bogus comparison.

And if you don't like the options that are available under the government plan, I would fully support a system that allows you to go to someone that wants to charge more than the amounts the government agrees to reimburse, and then you pay the extra either with a private supplemental plan or out of pocket. It would be just like going "out of network" with a private insurance plan.

This seems like it would be the best of both worlds, no?

 

[rocketman]

Everyone should take care of their own, on that we agree. But sometimes others fall ill and need help. We can let them suffer and do nothing, or we can set up a system which helps to prevent that suffering and ensure everyone, regardless of age or income can receive the health treatment they need. Which is more compassionate?

Obviously someone has told you that the poor & indigent are turned away at the door for care and this is just not the case. Medicaid is just one of the many government run healthcare options for the needy and yes, we all pay taxes to pay for the poor, indigent, as well as illegals which should not be in this country to begin with (for a different thread). Medicare is also a government run healthcare plan for the elderly, also taxpayer funded. I think what most here are bemoaning is that they want everyone to have the same level of care, that nobody should be able to have anything better, I guess that is to satisfy their sense of fairness...Newsflash! Life Is Not Fair...I want a new Corvette too, should I be able to have it because it is unfair that someone worked harder than I and got one and all I can afford is a toyota corolla? What we are dealing with here is envy & covetousness.

 

[rocketman]

Not all left wingers are pro abort or pro gay marraiage

If you support candidates that support that mess than your hands are just as dirty...

 

[rocketman]

That is called stealing. Or socialism. Because the only thing strong enough to take everything is a government.

Give that man a cigar, he nailed it! :cigar:

 

[rocketman]

And the only thing strong enough to protect everything is a government.

The only thing this government is protecting is their collective butt's. The game is money and power and you are willing to give them both never realizing that you have resigned your liberty for scraps being throw to you from the master's table, you are a slave and don't even know it. Liberty on the other hand empowers you, the individual to aspire to any social station you choose...quit depending on the government to make your life better and do it yourself.

 

[Nick M]

There is no Biblical case against universal healthcare whatsoever.

You shall not covet.

 

[Tinark]

You shall not covet.

Render unto Ceasar

 

[Tinark]

The only thing this government is protecting is their collective butt's. The game is money and power and you are willing to give them both never realizing that you have resigned your liberty for scraps being throw to you from the master's table, you are a slave and don't even know it. Liberty on the other hand empowers you, the individual to aspire to any social station you choose...quit depending on the government to make your life better and do it yourself.

Once again, the right wing on this board redefines words for no other purpose I can think of than to create confusion and to obfuscate - slavery (you'd piss your pants if you had to endure a minute of real slavery), freedom (you are clueless what living under a Communist or right-wing nationalist dictatorship is actually like).

And how so very, very hypocritical you make such a statement, as you cheer-lead the military to do your dirty work for you that you are unwilling to do yourself to make your life better (I don't see you volunteering to go fight ISIS or Iran), cheer-lead the police to catch and shoot those scary black criminals, etc.

"Big government, but only when *I* benefit. I already have healthcare, so the rest of you vermin can die."

The people in this country are sick of hypocritical attitudes like yours.

 

[elohiym]

What do you believe is the correct Christian view on it?

"Heal the sick." -- The Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[rocketman]

Do you understand that it is possible to have a UHC system where the government pays the bills like an insurance company, but doesn't actually manage the healthcare facilities like the hospitals and the clinics?

And you are under some sort of dilusion that the government will be able to run this cheaper & more streamline than a private sector for profit company? You are dreaming my friend...

We are simply talking about the government replacing the health insurance companies, and the taxes replacing health insurance premiums. Not talking about the government taking over everything.

I know exactly what you want, and I am quite sure that this government is not up to that task for less than I am paying now. Furthermore, if I don't like the service I get with my insurance provider now I can fire them and find a better one, it is called liberty & free market capitalism at work. Why would I want to trade that for a government that I can not, fire, fight, nor sue if I am not receiveing what I pay for. It's a no brainer, I am not sure what kind of utopian healthcare plan you think you will be getting but, i can assure you it will not be as good as what you have control to purchase right now.

Therefore, bringing up the VA is a bogus comparison.

Absolutely it is the perfect comparison, it as well as medicare are working models of government run healthcare, and neither are all that, in fact we all know how mismanaged the VA is/was??? Medicare is probably as close as you will get to UHC and I dread the day that I retire and have to rely on medicare (plenty of horror stories there) but, I have paid into it for all these years so I will more than likely join the ranks.

And if you don't like the options that are available under the government plan, I would fully support a system that allows you to go to someone that wants to charge more than the amounts the government agrees to reimburse, and then you pay the extra either with a private supplemental plan or out of pocket. It would be just like going "out of network" with a private insurance plan.

The problem is that like most government run programs, unless everyone participates than the price is astronomical. not manageable. Think about it, if people see that they can a get better value from the private sector than the whole thing falls on it's face and we are where we are now.

This seems like it would be the best of both worlds, no?

This is what you have now with Obamacare, you buy an overpriced plan and the government subsidizes you depending on your income. No matter how you slice it UHC is a hard sell to those who can do math, and if it were a great deal they would be able to sell it to the masses but, people all are well aware how mismanaged the government already is, why would anyone want them involved into their healthcare?

 

[lovemeorhateme]

I didn't say you would agree with me...:e4e:

:chuckle:

Thankfully we agree more than we don't.

I do, and I pay a tidy sum in taxes to provide for the endless flow of social programs which also includes healthcare to the indigent, feeding the hungry, housing,etc...and what I give to charity as well.

:thumb:

That's great to hear and I've got nothing to say against that.

I already pay for that as well in property taxes.

Of course. It seems you don't have a problem with everyone having fair and equal access to the fire service. Would you agree that someone who for whatever reason is not in work and hasn't paid that tax should still be able to get the fire service to put a fire out in their home?

So why not pay for healthcare in a different way which guarantees fair and equal access to all?

Really, I look at fire & police as insurance and again I pay taxes for that service...do you see the trend here, I pay for all these things already but, if I want something better than what the government offers I want the ability (liberty) to opt out and use my money for the health care coverage that I want, not some convoluted government issued cookie cutter plan...basically I want to be in control of my options not the government. Given that the government cannot run a hot dog stand efficiently, I sure as heck don't want them attempting to manage my health care. One only has to look at exhibit "A" the VA (Veterans Administration) the current government run healthcare plan to know that the government should not be in the health care business.

So why not look at healthcare as insurance in the same way as the police and fire services?

In a Universal Healthcare system such as in the UK, if you want to pay more and get treated privately, you can. There is nothing to stop you paying for private medical insurance and doing that. Though some procedures may still have to be done at NHS hospitals by NHS doctors, the private insurance company foots the bill. In addition to that, most NHS hospitals have a separate ward for private patients. That being said, very, very few people see the benefits of private healthcare or have private health insurance in the UK.

With a universal healthcare system, the government don't have to be running it. Indeed clinics and hospitals could be privately run with the government paying the bills instead of your insurance company.

Qualify your statement "better healthcare", do you mean better as in quality, or do you mean better as what is covered for what you are willing to pay? I believe in the U.S. you will be hard pressed to find substandard coverage anywhere, the U.S. has a excellent crop of healthcare workers, facilities, etc so I personally do not believe (except isolated cases) that any health care professional gives a level of quality care based upon social status. Do I believe that I should be able to buy a better plan than the next guy if I can afford it? yes, I do...after all, I am paying for it, I am getting exactly what I bargained for. A perfect example is being able to see a specialist, many plans require a referral from your doctor to see a specialist, the plan I have I have the liberty to see a specialist without a referral from anyone.This is an option that I have purchased and yes, I believe I should have that liberty if I am able to afford to pay for it.

I mean better as in what is covered. Do I think that anyone should be denied treatment because their insurance company won't cover it? No! Do I think that people should be landed with massive bills to get medical treatment? No! Do I think people should have to pay a 'co-pay' just to see their doctor? No! All of these concepts are as alien as they are abhorrent to me.

As I said above, if someone wants to pay for private insurance I have no issue with that. What I have an issue with is those who cannot afford such insurance being denied treatment for a medical problem/illness/disease.

I did not mean to offend, and yes universal healthcare IMO is a socialist policy. It is a service that I am being forced to pay for that I may not want, liberty allows me to make the choice instead of insatiable money grubbing government politicians telling me what I will pay for, and what I might get in return. I disagree with social security as well, this like everything the government touches is in deep trouble because legislators have robbed it blind...it is a horrible investment of money, a ponzi scheme of epic proportion.

No offence taken. Indeed I probably wouldn't argue with that. In the UK, we have people on all parts of the political spectrum from the conservative to the liberal to the socialist all agreeing with the principle of universal healthcare. So one doesn't have to be a socialist to believe in it. The fire service is a service that you are being forced to pay for that you might not want. So is the police. If you don't have kids, the same could be said for schools.

Have you seen the statistics which show healthcare costs in the US compared to other countries which have universal healthcare? The comparison is quite interesting.