The Case Against Universal Healthcare

[lovemeorhateme]

Of course it is. You said so.

This is coveting.

I disagree that enabling everyone to receive the healthcare they need is coveting. Besides which, I asked you a question. The piece of text you just highlighted is not coveting. Having the belief that access to healthcare should not be based on one's ability to pay is not coveting and you've done a very bad job of demonstrating otherwise.

You giving Tylenol that you paid for to somebody with a headache is selfless. You are not obliged to give him your Tylenol. You can if you want, you are not obliged. That is not universal healthcare.

Saying you don't want people to get healthcare if they cannot afford it is selfish. You keep turning everything back to front and twisting it. I would posit that not only are we obliged to help our fellow man but the Bible is replete with references which demonstrate this.

So give them what they need. That is not a function of government. You can not show in the Bible where it is a function of government. Your thread was to give others a chance in proving their view, but the burden is on you to show the government doing something. And yes, it is coveting to want what somebody else has.

You cannot show in the Bible where it states this should not be a function of government. If you can point me to any Biblical reference which actually states universal healthcare is wrong and people should not get the healthcare they need if the cannot afford it other than 'you shall not covet', I will gladly change my stance.

So do I.

You sure do a good job of hiding it.

No, because you require it, not desire it. You are forcing people against their desire for your own. That is coveting.

My first question is why would someone not desire to help someone in need, especially if they claim to be Christian? Secondly, if I go for medical treatment I'm not forcing anyone against their will to pay for it. If I am, the same could be said of private health insurance. After all, some will get far more from an insurance company than they pay in. That means they are taking your money.

The biggest difference in the two systems is that with universal healthcare people pay their 'insurance' to the government in the form of taxes. The government guarantees them cover instead of a private company who would prefer to find a way to worm their way out of paying your treatment costs for the sake of profits.

You don't work for free, but you think the doctor should work for free. You said so in the opening post.

I've stated this several times, I have at no point suggested that I expect doctors to work for free. You have obviously completely misread and misinterpreted the meaning of what I said or else you are being obtuse.

17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”

So yes, you covet when you want somebody with less to have more at the expense of others. And of course that somebody includes you. Unless you are going to tell me you pay extra for the care.

I want everyone to have equal access to healthcare so they can get the treatment they need when they need it. Not everyone can afford it, but in a compassionate society everyone should get it. It's not coveting to want those who are hurting and suffering to stop hurting and suffering! Are you really that callous?

As the last part of your statement, are you suggesting that I am sinning by going to see the doctor and getting healthcare?

 

[rocketman]

You would only pay 40% on any amount you earn above the £32,000 a year threshold. You would still pay no tax on the first £10,000 and then 20% tax on all of it up to £32,000. This means that you would pay less than 40% of your wages in income tax.

Yes there is indeed property, sales, petrol, road, alcohol and cigarette taxes. I'm not sure about any other taxes, but we have all that I just listed.

That is what I thought, and this is unacceptable. With all these other government take aways I would be reasonable in projecting at least 50% to 60% going to the government every year. I am sorry LMOHM but, nobody should be forced to pay half or more than half they make to the government, any more than a person should be forced to pay more for a service so others can have it too. How would you feel if the tax rate was a flat one and everyone paid 40% of their gross + misc tax? Do you not see the disconnect?

 

[rocketman]

That is what I thought, and this is unacceptable. With all these other government take aways I would be reasonable in projecting at least 50% to 60% going to the government every year. I am sorry LMOHM but, nobody should be forced to pay half or more than half they make to the government, any more than a person should be forced to pay more for a service so others can have it too. How would you feel if the tax rate was a flat one and everyone paid 40% of their gross + misc tax? Do you not see the disconnect?

Basically, I should work harder so others can see the benefit...and you don't think this is covetousness?

 

[lovemeorhateme]

That is what I thought, and this is unacceptable. With all these other government take aways I would be reasonable in projecting at least 50% to 60% going to the government every year. I am sorry LMOHM but, nobody should be forced to pay half or more than half they make to the government, any more than a person should be forced to pay more for a service so others can have it too. How would you feel if the tax rate was a flat one and everyone paid 40% of their gross + misc tax? Do you not see the disconnect?

I guess it's a balance of economies. You pay far more for your healthcare than we do. Why do you think that is?

 

[rocketman]

What is the use in working harder, getting a better job, or even aspiring to more than 39.000 pound threshold if you are just going to pay 20% more in tax. Heck I can do much less and get all the same benefit as any other citizen.

 

[lovemeorhateme]

Basically, I should work harder so others can see the benefit...and you don't think this is covetousness?

The harder you work, the more you benefit. I believe in that principle, and it's as true in the UK as it is in the USA. Our tax system may be a little different, but yes the more someone earns the more they will be better off.

I can't see that it's covetousness to believe in healthcare for all. It seems to be a peculiarly American idea amongst Christians, for I've never encountered a Christian outside of the USA who thinks that. Why do you think that might be?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Of course it is. You said so.

Actually, to address this in full, he didn't.

This is coveting.

Garbage. Having an empathic concern for others wellbeing is not coveting by any stretch.

You giving Tylenol that you paid for to somebody with a headache is selfless. You are not obliged to give him your Tylenol. You can if you want, you are not obliged. That is not universal healthcare.

A universal healthcare system provides for all in need. It would be more coveting to deny such aid to those who couldn't afford care because you're miffed at having to part with funds for the same system that would actually support you if you were to fall on hard times yourself.

So give them what they need. That is not a function of government. You can not show in the Bible where it is a function of government. Your thread was to give others a chance in proving their view, but the burden is on you to show the government doing something. And yes, it is coveting to want what somebody else has.

What do you mean "give them what they need"? Supposing their condition isn't a headache but a chronically debilitating disease? Who's going to provide the appropriate treatment for that as you sure couldn't.

So do I.

Sounds like it.

No, because you require it, not desire it. You are forcing people against their desire for your own. That is coveting.

How is he forcing anything by voicing an opinion that the needy should have access to health care and supporting a system that does just that? You're twisting a selfish desire (coveting) into all kinds of mangled rubbish.

 

[lovemeorhateme]

What is the use in working harder, getting a better job, or even aspiring to more than 39.000 pound threshold if you are just going to pay 20% more in tax. Heck I can do much less and get all the same benefit as any other citizen.

As I stated above, the 20% extra tax only applies to your earnings above the threshold. If you earned £1,000 above, you would pay 40% on £1,000 of your wages, £2,000 above then 40% on £2,000 and so on. Not on the rest of your wages up to that threshold. At no point do you get an increase in wages and find you have less money than before.

 

[rocketman]

I guess it's a balance of economies. You pay far more for your healthcare than we do. Why do you think that is?

I do not believe that to be true after seeing the amount of taxes you all pay...not true at all. You all are paying a hefty price for UHC and if not you personally, anybody making over 39,000 pounds/yr is getting raped!

 

[lovemeorhateme]

I do not believe that to be true after seeing the amount of taxes you all pay...not true at all. You all are paying a hefty price for UHC and if not you personally, anybody making over 39,000 pounds/yr is getting raped!

World healthcare statistics compiled from data held by the World Health Fund and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development which show quality of care and cost per person.

If the data is correct, healthcare in the UK is generally to a higher standard and is done for $5,000 less per capita than the USA. Why do you think that is?

 

[lovemeorhateme]

I do not believe that to be true after seeing the amount of taxes you all pay...not true at all. You all are paying a hefty price for UHC and if not you personally, anybody making over 39,000 pounds/yr is getting raped!

I don't believe that the bulk of that tax goes to the NHS. I absolutely agree that the government wastes too much money, but I fundamentally disagree that the NHS is the problem or that universal healthcare should be scrapped.

Remember what I stated earlier, I know not a single person who would advocate scrapping the NHS. I know not a single politician who would dare challenge the principle of healthcare free to all at point of need in the UK. To abolish the NHS here would be political suicide; such is the strength of the view among British people.

 

[rocketman]

As I stated above, the 20% extra tax only applies to your earnings above the threshold. If you earned £1,000 above, you would pay 40% on £1,000 of your wages, £2,000 above then 40% on £2,000 and so on. Not on the rest of your wages up to that threshold. At no point do you get an increase in wages and find you have less money than before.

I am not going to divulge my personal wages but, just for fun lets look at this great deal you are trying to propose here. Lets just say I make 100,000 pounds (nice round number) so, on the 34,370 I would pay 20% which is 6874 in taxes and I would pay an additional 26,132 for the additional 65,330 I made for a grand total of 33,006 of taxes about 30% as opposed to the U.S. would be around 25% for the same earnings. You also said there is an additional tax for your health care, no? Truly the lower wage earners are getting a boon while the middle class pick up the tab...why is people feel it is fair that someone pays a higher percentage of tax because they work harder or make more/better career? To be more personal why should you only pay 20% while the guy who makes more pays 30%? How can you call this just? It is not a swipe at you personally but, it is a swipe at the ideology of fairness and how it is calculated. I would think if you wanted to be fair (this country included) it would be a flat percentage across the board no matter what you earn...now wouldn't that be fair?

 

[lovemeorhateme]

I am not going to divulge my personal wages but, just for fun lets look at this great deal you are trying to propose here. Lets just say I make 100,000 pounds (nice round number) so, on the 34,370 I would pay 20% which is 6874 in taxes and I would pay an additional 26,132 for the additional 65,330 I made for a grand total of 33,006 of taxes about 30% as opposed to the U.S. would be around 25% for the same earnings. You also said there is an additional tax for your health care, no? Truly the lower wage earners are getting a boon while the middle class pick up the tab...why is people feel it is fair that someone pays a higher percentage of tax because they work harder or make more/better career? To be more personal why should you only pay 20% while the guy who makes more pays 30%? How can you call this just? It is not a swipe at you personally but, it is a swipe at the ideology of fairness and how it is calculated. I would think if you wanted to be fair (this country included) it would be a flat percentage across the board no matter what you earn...now wouldn't that be fair?

You would pay no tax on the first £10,000 so that's a reduction of another £2,000 from your calculation, but other than that you're correct.

The thinking behind it is that the poor cannot afford to contribute as much, and I tend to agree. As I already said, the harder you work the more you earn. There's no limit on that. But a 40% tax would have much more of an impact on the life of someone earning say £10,000 a year than it would on someone earning £100,000 a year. Yes the person earning more would pay more, but it would still impact them less. I don't look at what others who are better off than me have and say 'I want that', but I am glad that through myself and others a system exists where everyone can get the healthcare they need.

I'm happy to pay a little more if that's what it takes so we can have such a system, and I know no one here who would object to that. Even Margaret Thatcher didn't dismantle the NHS. Any government which tried would start a revolution in all political and social classes. Once countries have universal healthcare, they tend to see the benefits and never go back. There's not a single case I'm aware of where a country adopting universal healthcare voted to dismantle it again.

We've had universal healthcare since 1948. It's not new, it's not perfect; but it is fair, compassionate and just.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I don't believe that the bulk of that tax goes to the NHS. I absolutely agree that the government wastes too much money, but I fundamentally disagree that the NHS is the problem or that universal healthcare should be scrapped.

Remember what I stated earlier, I know not a single person who would advocate scrapping the NHS. I know not a single politician who would dare challenge the principle of healthcare free to all at point of need in the UK. To abolish the NHS here would be political suicide; such is the strength of the view among British people.

Absolutely, and that's not to say that the NHS is without its flaws but the principle of universal healthcare is one that holds true and as you say, no political party would venture otherwise.

This being said the ambulance services leave a lot to be desired if my experience from a few months ago is anything to go by. After walking home from a local supermarket a man slipped, fell and cracked the back of his head on a wall behind me. I rang for one and a whole one hour and forty minutes (and several subsequent phone calls) later one still hadn't shown up to the scene. The excuse? Lack of funding and reduced ambulance services...

 

[lovemeorhateme]

Absolutely, and that's not to say that the NHS is without its flaws but the principle of universal healthcare is one that holds true and as you say, no political party would venture otherwise.

This being said the ambulance services leave a lot to be desired if my experience from a few months ago is anything to go by. After walking home from a local supermarket a man slipped, fell and cracked the back of his head on a wall behind me. I rang for one and a whole one hour and forty minutes (and several subsequent phone calls) later one still hadn't shown up to the scene. The excuse? Lack of funding and reduced ambulance services...

Of course. I've stated several times that the NHS is not perfect. But the nature of the debate here isn't whether we should abandon the principle of universal healthcare, but how the NHS can be reformed or improved.

My own experience of the ambulance service has been pretty good. Having moderate to severe asthma, I occasionally have a major attack which requires an ambulance and I've always had a prompt response and excellent service from the NHS paramedics. Usually they are able to treat me at home without even needing to take me to the hospital.

That being said, I know that the current Conservative government have cut funding to the ambulance service and it's something that I think needs to be reversed very quickly! They closed the ambulance station in Bexhill where I live, leaving Hastings to now cover quite a large area from Bexhill to Rye, Battle and Robertsbridge. Not a small area, especially at night when less paramedics are on duty.

 

[elohiym]

If it's all about money, those in the U.S. should consider the government can create U.S. Notes, which is a debt free currency, and spend it on UHC. Presently, the government creates bonds and exchanges them for Federal Reserve Notes (debt for debt). Is anyone denying that U.S. Notes exist and have been used successfully in the past? If not, then why couldn't they be used to finance a healthcare system without taxing the people? The answer is they could but the current system maintains a power structure that isn't going to allow that.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Of course. I've stated several times that the NHS is not perfect. But the nature of the debate here isn't whether we should abandon the principle of universal healthcare, but how the NHS can be reformed or improved.

Oh, totally. It needs improving in areas for sure but you know I support UHC so it would be all about reform for me.

My own experience of the ambulance service has been pretty good. Having moderate to severe asthma, I occasionally have a major attack which requires an ambulance and I've always had a prompt response and excellent service from the NHS paramedics. Usually they are able to treat me at home without even needing to take me to the hospital.

I'm certainly glad you've had prompt service. That's as it should be.

That being said, I know that the current Conservative government have cut funding to the ambulance service and it's something that I think needs to be reversed very quickly! They closed the ambulance station in Bexhill where I live, leaving Hastings to now cover quite a large area from Bexhill to Rye, Battle and Robertsbridge. Not a small area, especially at night when less paramedics are on duty.

Agreed. I got the impression while speaking to the ambulance service reps that this is a relatively recent phenomenon and it's pathetic IMNSHO. An emergency service should be fully contingent at all times. It's not as though this current travesty of a government couldn't cut revenue from other areas with no "good" reason...

 

[Tinark]

That is what I thought, and this is unacceptable. With all these other government take aways I would be reasonable in projecting at least 50% to 60% going to the government every year. I am sorry LMOHM but, nobody should be forced to pay half or more than half they make to the government, any more than a person should be forced to pay more for a service so others can have it too. How would you feel if the tax rate was a flat one and everyone paid 40% of their gross + misc tax? Do you not see the disconnect?

I don't know how many members you have in your family, but did you also take into account the savings you'd have on no longer needing to pay for healthcare, through health insurance premiums and other out of pocket? If your employer pays for your healthcare, it most likely is paying about $300/per person/per month for your premiums. That's $1,200 per month for a family of 4.

 

[Tinark]

On the question of "how will we pay for it",

I would start by cutting or military spending by 50%, which would still leave our spending at 66% more than China and Russia's military combined (the #2 and #3 spenders in the entire world). Get our NATO allies to contribute their fair share to prevent cuts from having an adverse impact (most of the rest of the military spending in the world are our allies anyway, there is no reason we need to spend so much as everyone else spends so little).

That saves us $300 billion per year. This $300B would also be combined with Medicaid ($430B spent in 2013) plus Medicare ($583B spent in 2014) - We now have $1.46T per year for the UHC without raising taxes a penny. This comes out to $4,575 per person. We are still a little short, to have a strong healthcare system we need to be the best in the world and spend at least $5,575 per person, to be well on top of the next highest, Norway, by over 10% per person!

Thus, we need to raise $1,000 in additional taxes per person, or approximately $320B more. This can be accomplished with a combination of tax increases (which are not burdensome since people no longer have to buy health insurance - their employer will exchange the health insurance for higher wages instead) and other spending cuts elsewhere.

One department ripe for cutting is the dept of agriculture. I'd leave the SNAP food stamp program alone ($74B in 2014) and instead focus on the remaining $67B spent on this dept in 2014. Most of this consists of agriculture subsidies. We could easily cut this dept by $50B without having a negative impact.

So now, We need to raise taxes by $270B. This could be raised with a 4% national sales tax (which is predicted to raise about $300B, but, due to some slight negative economic impact, let's say it only generates $270B). A sales tax I think is fair: everyone consumes goods and services, and the healthcare benefit goes to everyone. Therefore, we all pay for it. Illegal aliens will pay for it. Tourists will pay for it. 4% increase on the cost of the items you buy for such a great benefit is a bargain: it's no more of an increase than about two years worth of inflation. You'd hardly even notice it.

So, for a small amount of tax increase which, once again, is more than offset by the savings from no more payments for premiums and other out of pocket costs, and cutting other depts that provide us little benefit, we get a world class universal healthcare system (with the most spending per person in the entire world). And we no longer have any out of pocket if we don't want it. Of course, you'd be free to add your own funds on top of program to get supplemental coverage or whatever, but, everyone, poorest to richest, would be offered good quality care regardless of their income level.

It's a no-brainer.

 

[TIPlatypus]

Perhaps you could pay medical insurance. Then you could get the insurance companies to pay your bills. This would only be for expensive operations though. Cheap things you will probably have to pay for yourself. This might work better in some scenarios. Living in England, our NHS seems to be doing its job well though.