The Case Against Universal Healthcare

[lovemeorhateme]

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.

No, that's not what I've been told. Correct me if I am wrong but as I understand it the poor and those who cannot afford insurance can still get emergency treatment. They are just left with a big bill afterwards, and often end up bankrupt. The idea that even one person could be forced to go bankrupt to pay for medical care is abhorrent to me and most of the Western world outside the USA.

 

[lovemeorhateme]

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

In the UK that would generally mean not voting. Sadly most MPs support these things, though they never usually even mention them in their election campaigns.

 

[elohiym]

The idea that even one person could be forced to go bankrupt to pay for medical care is abhorrent to me and most of the Western world outside the USA.

It is abhorrent to some of us in the U.S., too.

 

[lovemeorhateme]

You shall not covet.

Who exactly is coveting what? I fail to see how that applies here. It would be great if you would qualify your statements more instead of writing one liners.

 

[TIPlatypus]

Ideally I am for universal healthcare. But I think it is practically impossible most places. I haven't thought about it much but it can't be the only solution and it certainly won't always be the best solution. And besides, worldwide universal healthcare will never ever ever happen, wonderful as it would be.

 

[rocketman]

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).

You can step off your soap box now, nobody is talking about a right wing nationalist or communist regime though what you are after sounds a lot like communism to me comrade. Slavery comes in many forms and not all slaves wear visible chains. I am curious though would you consider yourself a slave to the credit card company if you owed them a lot of money at a high interest rate? I would...the borrower is enslaved to the lender, eve heard that before. Working to support the government or state against your will with no choice is a form of slavery, it is the opposite of what you were given by the founders of this nation...liberty, the freedom to choose.

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)

Actually, I work for a military contractor, on a military base, in support of the military so, I am doing my duty and if I were young enough I would volunteer in a moment to be a part of defending an ingrate like you.

cheer-lead the police to catch and shoot those scary black criminals, etc.

Not sure where you are headed with this portion of your rant...take a deep breath. :jawdrop:

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

Who is after big government? not me...if it were up to me the federal government would shrink exponentially.

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

No, you and liberals like you are sick of not getting a freebie on the backs of the taxpayer. Really there is a whole host of people just like me that agree that UHC is not something that America wants or needs.

A couple of questions though, would you as a liberal be willing to cut the size of this government down, do away with a large portion of certain agencies to pay for UHC? what would you be willing to sacrifice?

 

[Nick M]

Of course not, I'm in paid employment; but I fail to see the relevance of that question to the subject of hand.

Well, you said the practitioners should not be paid.

What do you believe about the principle of healthcare which is free to all at point of need?

Why should a doctor do it for free? You don't go to work for free and neither do I.

 

[rocketman]

:chuckle:

Thankfully we agree more than we don't.



:thumb:

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



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?



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.



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.



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.

You make a compelling argument LMOHM but, if you do not mind me asking what percentage of your wages do you pay in taxes?

 

[Tinark]

Well, you said the practitioners should not be paid.



Why should a doctor do it for free? You don't go to work for free and neither do I.

Do you expect an armed forces member to go work for free?

 

[Nick M]

Who exactly is coveting what? I fail to see how that applies here. It would be great if you would qualify your statements more instead of writing one liners.

Ok. You asked about those who don't agree if you think they are not entitled. Perhaps you don't know what coveting is. This is the very definition. You think they should have something others have. That is wrong. Coveting is immoral and sin.

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?

So you don't go to work for free but you think somebody should give them something, just not you.

Are you following me? I will wait as you converse and contemplate with rocketman.

 

[Nick M]

Do you expect an armed forces member to go work for free?

I go to the highest bidder in the civilian market. They should also be compensated higher and by job category.

 

[lovemeorhateme]

Well, you said the practitioners should not be paid.

Why should a doctor do it for free? You don't go to work for free and neither do I.

At no point have I said doctors or medical staff should not be paid. I'm not entirely sure where that came from?

 

[lovemeorhateme]

You make a compelling argument LMOHM but, if you do not mind me asking what percentage of your wages do you pay in taxes?

I don't mind you asking. The tax system in the UK varies depending on one's income. On my income of £12,000 ($17,500-$18,000) I pay no tax on the first £10,000 and then only 20% on the remaining £2,000. In addition to that I pay National Insurance contributions. This means that on £1,000 ($1,500) a month I come home with around £926. ($1,350-$1,400) This is working 37 hours a week for the minimum wage.

 

[lovemeorhateme]

Ok. You asked about those who don't agree if you think they are not entitled. Perhaps you don't know what coveting is. This is the very definition. You think they should have something others have. That is wrong. Coveting is immoral and sin.

Are you implying that advocating for universal healthcare to help others is coveting? I would posit that the very principle of universal healthcare is selflessness yet you seem to be implying that it is selfishness.

If someone is ill and just wants to be well but cannot get the treatment that others can, is it coveting to simply wish that one could stop suffering? I desire that everyone gets the healthcare they need. Am I coveting because I have that desire?

By what logic is universal healthcare 'selfishness' and 'covetousness'?

So you don't go to work for free but you think somebody should give them something, just not you.

What are you talking about? I'm quite confused by that statement.

Are you following me? I will wait as you converse and contemplate with rocketman.

I'm struggling to follow you. lain:

 

[Nick M]

At no point have I said doctors or medical staff should not be paid. I'm not entirely sure where that came from?

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?

How can the doctor be paid if the buyer does not pay for services?

 

[rocketman]

I don't mind you asking. The tax system in the UK varies depending on one's income. On my income of £12,000 ($17,500-$18,000) I pay no tax on the first £10,000 and then only 20% on the remaining £2,000. In addition to that I pay National Insurance contributions. This means that on £1,000 ($1,500) a month I come home with around £926. ($1,350-$1,400) This is working 37 hours a week for the minimum wage.

O.K., I read the tax brackets in the UK here and this tells me that I would pay 40%... now, with that said would I also pay property, sales, petrol, car use, capital gains, & other misc taxes in addition to this 40%?

 

[Nick M]

Are you implying that advocating for universal healthcare to help others is coveting?

Of course it is. You said so.

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?

This is coveting.

I would posit that the very principle of universal healthcare is selflessness yet you seem to be implying that it is selfishness.

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.

If someone is ill and just wants to be well but cannot get the treatment that others can, is it coveting to simply wish that one could stop suffering?

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.

I desire that everyone gets the healthcare they need.

So do I.

Am I coveting because I have that desire?

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

What are you talking about? I'm quite confused by that statement.

I'm struggling to follow you.

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

What do you believe about the principle of healthcare which is free to all at point of need?

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.

 

[lovemeorhateme]

How can the doctor be paid if the buyer does not pay for services?

Which part of the government pays the bills in a universal healthcare system did you miss? That would include the wages of medical staff.

 

[lovemeorhateme]

O.K., I read the tax brackets in the UK here and this tells me that I would pay 40%... now, with that said would I also pay property, sales, petrol, car use, capital gains, & other misc taxes in addition to this 40%?

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.

 

[Arthur Brain]

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

Er, no, LMOHM said no such thing either in the OP or elsewhere on the thread. You seem to have little understanding of what universal healthcare actually entails in principle and it certainly doesn't require medical professionals to work without wages. I wish I could say I was surprised but nowadays...

lain: