Evidence for God from Science

Being pro-life - does that end when a child is born or does it carry on beyond that?

Some might say "Well, if the parents don't make enough money and cannot pay for care, that is their fault." and we still have a child who cannot fend for themselves anymore than they could in the womb who might well die from lack of care.

We pool our money for defense of our country (way of life, and life in general) and for things like roads (which we all need), police (protection of life/property/liberty), and fire departments (saving us from fires, etc).

We don't expect a bill each month from the cops, military, or fire department. We decided that such services were essential to a free and healthy country. And yet health care (or lack thereof) is the one thing which takes more lives each year than murder, terrorism, fires.

Insurance companies worship at the alter of the dollar, it is their golden calf. They exist for profit - not for your well being.

As a Christian I cannot see how we can pool our money for bombs and wars and then ignore the thing which is killing more people here than anything else.

Are we saying money is more important? Do we put more faith in corporations whose bottom line is a dollar sign - so much so that they let people die and deny them care so that they can afford yachts, bigger buildings, higher CEO pay? We don't do that with defense, police, fire.

Do we let the least of God's sheep suffer? Why is it so many on the right think making health care available to all is bad?

Helping others here is not just about building more nuclear weapons. And would you rather your money go to things which can kill or to things which could save lives?

You bring up a lot of issues, chance. Let me just offer a few thoughts to challenge your thinking on this:

1. We "pool our money" to pay for things like police and the army, not because it's for the good of everyone (although it is), but because these are necessary services for a country to have if it is to function normally that we as private citizens cannot provide for ourselves.

This goes to the purpose of government, which I agree with Jefferson, which is that the government should only do for the people what they cannot do for themselves. Since we are perfectly capable of providing for our own healthcare, that is not the domain of government.

It seems that if we argue that the government must do EVERYTHING it can to save lives or make us more comfortable, then we would have a tyrannical government indeed. Should the government mandate an hour a day of exercise? Should it mandate that we eat our broccoli? Should it outlaw cigarettes? There are some good things that the gov't can't do for us. Healthcare is one of them.

2. From a policy perspective, health care reform isn't about health care at all. It is about health insurance. We have indigent health care already. How we pay for it, and who does, is another issue. Is it the government's problem that some people go bankrupt because of their health needs? I don't think so. Should the government protect you from every risk in life? I don't think so.

As far as how many people die each year from not having health insurance, the highest number I could find was 45000, which is certainly a lot. But we should also note that study was 1) funded by a group that favors single-payer and so is likely biased (indeed, a previous study by this same group found much lower risk-factors . . . the timing of the ramp up is questionable), and 2) it has been challenged as being flawed.

The Christian response to this? Love your neighbor. Help them where you can. Don't be so busy lavishing riches on yourself that you have nothing to give, say, the Red Cross. Once we have done that, and it still isn't enough, look to the government. But until we have, you are asking me to use Christianity to endorse the idea that you can live in the lap of luxury and demand other people give up their stuff to pay for someone else's health insurance. That's theft. It's being generous with other people's money. Be generous with your own, first.

A policy solution? Here's a few ideas:

1. Tort reform and/or a "Loser pays" legal system;
2. Allow insurance to be purchased across state lines;
3. Give the same tax-breaks for individuals to buy their own health insurance as companies get for providing it;
4. Provide a government-subsidized pool for high-risk individuals who cannot get standard insurance due to pre-existing conditions, etc.;
5. Move to a prevention based healthcare model;
6. Allow small clinics to be opened in communities and shopping centers that are staffed by PAs and NPs.

That would certainly be a start . . .

.
.
My position is much like Jac's however Jac has a better way of relaying that position than I do.

I'm not willing to pay more taxes to help others. I must first be able to help myself and at this point I feel I am taxed up the wazoo already.
First lets fix one aspect of governmental help to the "needy". Fix the welfare problem and I'm sure there will be lots and lots of extra $$ to help others without raising taxes.
.
.

You say the Government should not provide health care? I disagree. Britain has been doing it for years. The NHS. It has its problems - but it is an amazing system. Health care should be free. Jesus never charged people for healing them.

Silvertusk.

Silvertusk wrote:You say the Government should not provide health care? I disagree. Britain has been doing it for years. The NHS. It has its problems - but it is an amazing system. Health care should be free. Jesus never charged people for healing them.

Silvertusk.

It's not free.

August wrote:

Silvertusk wrote:You say the Government should not provide health care? I disagree. Britain has been doing it for years. The NHS. It has its problems - but it is an amazing system. Health care should be free. Jesus never charged people for healing them.

Silvertusk.

It's not free.

No it's not. It's not equally accessible in our system either however and costs continue to spiral.

Granted we pay for it with our taxes - But it is free for people who cannot afford it. There is no issue of not treating someone if they do not have insurance.

Silvertusk wrote:Granted we pay for it with our taxes - But it is free for people who cannot afford it. There is no issue of not treating someone if they do not have insurance.

Is dental care not included?
.
.

Ok back

Let me address a few things before I get to your points.

When it comes to taxes for health care (like many countries with single payer):

At one of my last jobs I made about 80k/year. I paid over 1k/month for health/dental/vision. My wife (now X) was sick a lot, so I also had regular deductibles I had to pay out - from seeing docs to getting meds (some of which were not fully covered). All in all I was out about 1500/month or so.

If I were paying into a single payer system, and everyone else was as well through payroll tax (based on how much you make) then I would have paid a lot less for health care then I did. So higher taxes for me would have translated into less out of pocket expenses. A net gain.

The problem with the system now is that there are many who cannot afford, or even get, health insurance - so you and I pay for them anyway through higher prices and premiums (why do you think a band aid in the hospital costs $20?)

Insurance companies are in the market to make money and they will pass along costs, ie a tax, to you. Why do you think so many argue against a minimum wage? Because the cost gets passed along to consumers and is seen as basically a raise in taxes (though given volume, the amount raised on product is usually tiny).

Creating a new tax on income will most likely save the average person each month if we went to a single payer style system.

Ok, on to your points:

A policy solution? Here's a few ideas:

1. Tort reform and/or a "Loser pays" legal system;
2. Allow insurance to be purchased across state lines;
3. Give the same tax-breaks for individuals to buy their own health insurance as companies get for providing it;
4. Provide a government-subsidized pool for high-risk individuals who cannot get standard insurance due to pre-existing conditions, etc.;
5. Move to a prevention based healthcare model;
6. Allow small clinics to be opened in communities and shopping centers that are staffed by PAs and NPs.

1. Tort Reform - that can help some, but the people providing malpractice insurance are not going to drop their rates, they have investors in China, UK, Canada, US, etc who want them to make more and more profit. They will simply use that to increase profit margins and give bigger bonuses to their management.

2. I agree with that.

3. Tax breaks - those help out at the end of the year - but does nothing to help people afford their insurance/bills each month. Try telling your mortgage company to wait until you file your taxes and get money back for the house note.

4. Insurance companies are all about risk, why should everything be a safe bet for them, are they Vegas? They have no interest in you or your health - they want YOU to play the risk game by THEIR rules. Having a govt subsidized pool would do nothing more than allow them to hedge their bets - at taxpayer expense. They, like some banks, would claim they are too big to fail.

5. Prevention based health care - part of prevention is being able to see a Dr. when you need to, not when you can afford to. Many now could be helped and save a ton of issues if they could get in to the Dr. and fix issues before they got worse. Now - they get worse and you and I are on the hook when someone has to go to the ER because they cannot afford to go see someone and get the meds/care they need now.

6. Clinics - go to a single payer system and you don't need to worry as much about clinics.

--------------------Lastly------------------------

Most of our military's best weapons and advances were made by private companies. WE pay for all of it from our taxes and have a healthy dose of both government employees (army folks, etc) and private employees who keep advancing technology to the point that we have the most advanced military in the world.

Imagine if we had single payer where we could all get the basic care we need, cheaper than we pay now (so that you brought home more each week in your paycheck), and the savings was spent on private companies developing better and better health care tech.

more later.

chance wrote:Most of our military's best weapons and advances were made by private companies. WE pay for all of it from our taxes and have a healthy dose of both government employees (army folks, etc) and private employees who keep advancing technology to the point that we have the most advanced military in the world.

Imagine if we had single payer where we could all get the basic care we need, cheaper than we pay now (so that you brought home more each week in your paycheck), and the savings was spent on private companies developing better and better health care tech.

If this is true, then why is it that Canada doesn't have THE best health care in the world? Why is it the Brits have bad teeth? Why is it (I presume) the U.S. has the best health care? (in most areas)
.
.

If this is true, then why is it that Canada doesn't have THE best health care in the world? Why is it the Brits have bad teeth? Why is it (I presume) the U.S. has the best health care? (in most areas)

You forgot one really important thing: The best health care someone can afford.

Sure, there might be folks who come here (and did you know the ones who come here from Canada have their health care paid for from Canada's plans - our hospitals on the border have made deals with Canada) to get such care - but why is it that someone here with pancreatic cancer cannot get that 'best care'?

Because it is about money (the root of all evil?).

How much does it matter that you have the best health care here if you cannot use it?

Oh an to dispel the myth that we have the best:

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

The World Health Organization's ranking
of the world's health systems.

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan

US is 37th.

Paying the most does not mean you have the best - that is like saying because you paid $400 for a coach purse means that someone who paid $10 for a purse that holds the same things got ripped off.

BavarianWheels wrote:

chance wrote:
Imagine if we had single payer where we could all get the basic care we need, cheaper than we pay now (so that you brought home more each week in your paycheck), and the savings was spent on private companies developing better and better health care tech.

If this is true, then why is it that Canada doesn't have THE best health care in the world? Why is it the Brits have bad teeth? Why is it (I presume) the U.S. has the best health care? (in most areas)
.

I'm in Canada. Canada's healthcare isn't very good because there are too many chiefs and too few indians. Too much red tape also. Too many people go to the Emergency ward because they have a cold or a wart...(My wife is an RN and we have radiologist, nurse and doctor friends...and one dentist.)

Those people who can afford the private parallel heathcare system here will use it to avoid incredibly long waits for any kind of medical treatment.

FL

I'm in Canada. Canada's healthcare isn't very good because there are too many chiefs and too few indians. Too much red tape also. Too many people go to the Emergency ward because they have a cold or a wart...(My wife is an RN and we have radiologist, nurse and doctor friends...and one dentist.)

Those people who can afford the private parallel heathcare system here will use it to avoid incredibly long waits for any kind of medical treatment.

So how is it worse than here? We have 'the best care in the world' here in the US and yet I cannot even go to the Dr. right now.

I'd stand in line for hours if I could to see someone, but I cannot even do that. When I am sick now I just suck it up.

How much do you pay for meds and to see a Dr.? I don't have insurance and cannot find a Dr. to see me at all. If you get cancer how much do you have to pay for care - if you are here and cannot pay for it you are screwed. Go to a clinic? I cannot afford that.

My X is suffering from a disease that is slowly killing her. If she was wealthy she could afford an operation that might help her, if she were in Europe she would get better care. She cannot afford her meds most months.

How much do you pay out of pocket each month for meds, deductibles, tests? She has not been able to pay for much of it so she just suffers.

The best health care in the world means nothing if you cannot pay for it.

chance wrote:So how is it worse than here? We have 'the best care in the world' here in the US and yet I cannot even go to the Dr. right now.I'd stand in line for hours if I could to see someone, but I cannot even do that. When I am sick now I just suck it up.

Well...you got me there. I don't understand your situation, though. You do have a point in that here, everyone is able to see a doctor.

chance wrote:How much do you pay for meds and to see a Dr.?

Doctor is free. Meds are cheaper than in the USA.

chance wrote:My X is suffering from a disease that is slowly killing her. If she was wealthy she could afford an operation that might help her, if she were in Europe she would get better care. She cannot afford her meds most months.

OK...that wouldn't happen here. Are there not charitable clinics/hospitals in the USA?

chance wrote:How much do you pay out of pocket each month for meds, deductibles, tests?

Deductibles? Tests are free.

chance wrote:The best health care in the world means nothing if you cannot pay for it.

Well...I do have egg on my face at this point. I guess the only thing I can say is that public health care is extremely expensive. Canadian income and sales taxes are considerably higher than they are in the USA. Still, I would prefer a user-pay system. But you do have a point: poorer people can still get care here and in Europe.

FL

There are doctors dropping Medicare and medicaid left and right, so gove't health care won't solve the problem.