Evidence for God from Science

A few people I know on facebook were debating their stances regarding whether universal health care was moral, ethical, etc. and whether or not the US should adopt a system guaranteeing health insurance to all its citizens. The issue of privatized medicine/medical research was brought up as well.

So, I wanted to see the views and reasoning for or against universal health care. To be clear, this is not intended to specifically discuss Obama's health care plan or any specific details of one plan or another, but rather a general discussion of whether the government should provide or should be allowed to provide health care to all its citizens. Since practically speaking everyone else on here is a conservative Christian, I thought it would be interesting to see if there were any religious implications/obligations and how the conservative side (which generally opposes all forms of universal health care) would handle the situation.

I'll leave it open to start off. For the record, I am in favor of essentially eliminating privatized medical care in favor of universal health care (not-for-profit), though to be clear I do not wholly support Obama's plan, or any other proposed plan that I've heard of recently in the US.

Well you have no arguments here about a universal health care system. We have the NHS here in Britain and I think i is a God send. Personally I think you Americans are nuts not having one. I can't see any good reason why you don't - maybe someone might enlighten me.

Silvertsuk.

Silvertusk wrote:Well you have no arguments here about a universal health care system. We have the NHS here in Britain and I think i is a God send. Personally I think you Americans are nuts not having one. I can't see any good reason why you don't - maybe someone might enlighten me.

What silver said except replace Britain with Australia.


Dan

While I can't give you everybody's reasons, these are the arguments against it that I frequently hear:

It would increase taxes.
It would mean citizens would have their healthcare choices made by the government, like you couldn't pick your own doctor, etc. (but I don't know how true that really is)
It would destroy the private medicine industry (which I personally think is a good idea)
Rich people's taxes shouldn't be used to support the lower class by paying for their healthcare (this is the anti-socialism faction)
Medical professionals would no longer make lots of money (again, not sure if this is true...But personally, as someone wanting to get into that industry, I don't want people to be drawn to medicine just for cash)
The Christian-right wing group also tends to throw in that universal health care would probably cover birth control and abortions.

It would increase taxes.

True. If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait til it's free!

It would mean citizens would have their healthcare choices made by the government, like you couldn't pick your own doctor, etc. (but I don't know how true that really is)

True. More government control being a problem, is an argument.

It would destroy the private medicine industry

More govt control means less private control.

Rich people's taxes shouldn't be used to support the lower class by paying for their healthcare (this is the anti-socialism faction)

Socialism in the name of equality, usually makes people more equally poor. It doesn't provide reward for hard work.

The Christian-right wing group also tends to throw in that universal health care would probably cover birth control and abortions.

More govt control.
Did you know, in Massachusetts, you have to have health insurance? It's mandatory. Since when is the govt in a business of requiring people to buy a service they don't necessarily want?

Rick, I agree it's silly to force people to purchase health insurance from a private source if they don't want it. But, personally, the government shouldn't have to require it. Health care ought to be available to everybody, and a lack of insurance can lead to lack of care.

I still don't buy the idea that universal health care is socialism. Are Australia and the UK socialist states because they provide health care for their citizens? No, I don't think so. The notion that rich people should have the ability to keep their money for themselves and not pay taxes that help anybody else seems to be a solely American thought process. I'm not advocating a system where it's total equity as far as cash is concerned, but asking the wealthy to pay the same rate of taxes as everybody else, and for those taxes to help the less fortunate have basic living necessities is so greedy it's sad.

I'm curious, what is the average wait time to have surgery in the UK or Australia? Something non life-threatening like to remove tonsils, adenoids, or a benign polyp.

I favor some form of universal health care for a few reasons:

1. The current system rewards insurance companies for making the claims process difficult and excluding known risks from the actuarial pool.

2. Despite denials to the contrary, we already have universal access to health care but the cost of the uninsured is carried disproportianately by those with insurance who actually get sick and have to pay the risk premium by way of increased doctor'sfees and hospital overhead passed on to them. Emergency and delayed health care for those without insurance tends to push them to wait until it's progressed and further increases the cost. It would be cheaper and proportianately spread across the board without penalizing those who are sick and can afford the insurance.

3.It's morally wrong for a society to not care for its poor and weak. It's somewhat ironic to me that many right-wing Christians (and I used to be one before leaving the Republican party and becoming an independent) who decry the teaching of Darwinism in the classroom, then advocate a form of social Darwinism that leaves the very people Christ commanded us to care for, out in the cold. Yes I understand that many are willing to help and just don't want the government involved. My experience and observation is that for most that is lip-service for argument's sake and when left to put that into practice they don't.

There will be no perfect system possibly but the government in my estimation is the only entity that has the power and scope of coordination to make the actuarial risk the same as the entire population. When health care and insurance are managed privately with a profit motive it becomes standard practice to use every means available to exclude the people who need it most.

There is no doubt we need Universal Health Care... Our system needs to be overhauled for sure. Many of these hospitals here in America pick and choose who they support based on money and their health. Sad..

Byblos wrote:I'm curious, what is the average wait time to have surgery in the UK or Australia? Something non life-threatening like to remove tonsils, adenoids, or a benign polyp.

If it is non life threatening it can be from 6 months - 2 years, it really depends on the procedure.
My wife had a knee reconstruction and she had to wait 8 months.

*EDIT* Tonsils,adenoids and polyps could be a weeks to a couple of month's

Dan

Fwiw:http://healthcare.procon.org/
Some basic pros and cons of UHC

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Byblos wrote:I'm curious, what is the average wait time to have surgery in the UK or Australia? Something non life-threatening like to remove tonsils, adenoids, or a benign polyp.

If it is non life threatening it can be from 6 months - 2 years, it really depends on the procedure.
My wife had a knee reconstruction and she had to wait 8 months.

*EDIT* Tonsils,adenoids and polyps could be a weeks to a couple of month's

Dan

That's what I thought. And why I will never support universal health care.

Well what about the ones who can't afford their health care insurance then Byblos? What happens to them? It is our Christian duty to care for the sick - if we pay more taxes and I know they are going to a health care system that cares for all people then - I will certainly sleep better. Denying health care to people just beause they cannot afford it is wrong in every conceivable way.

In Britain if you don't want to wait - then you can go private - so there is that option.

I have nothing but high praise for our NHS who has helped my family through some difficut times.

Silvertusk.

Silvertusk wrote:Well what about the ones who can't afford their health care insurance then Byblos? What happens to them? It is our Christian duty to care for the sick - if we pay more taxes and I know they are going to a health care system that cares for all people then - I will certainly sleep better. Denying health care to people just beause they cannot afford it is wrong in every conceivable way.

In Britain if you don't want to wait - then you can go private - so there is that option.

I have nothing but high praise for our NHS who has helped my family through some difficut times.

Silvertusk.

I'm all for caring for the less fortunate and yes, we have an obligation to do so. But the government should not be in the business of shoving being charitable down my throat. There are many in the States who are in need of health insurance but can't afford it. But you know what, there are also many who can afford it but don't want to. You don't think we're already paying for the cost of their health care? Of course, the taxpayers do. Both my wife and brother-in-law are medics and they will tell you most, if not all, the patients they pick up on medicare's dime either don't need to go to the hospital or if they do they can afford it. Someone who calls an ambulance and pretends to have a heart attack, is given a free ride to the hospital and free care when there and what does he have? An ingrown toe nail. Ambulance cost: $500, emergency care cost: $1,500 all billed to medicare and paid by the taxpayers all because the patient didn't feel like taking a cab to a free clinic or see a private doctor. The system is broken, I know that. But the solution is certainly not to make the 70% pay for the 30% (as we do now) and then stick us with a 3 months average wait time to see a specialist. Just last week I called a specialist and made an appointment, saw him this morning, had x-rays done on my heel, found out I had plantar fasciitis, gave me a shot of cortisone and said to come back in a month. If it's not better, we'll schedule surgery within a week or two. With UHC I will still pay the same or more and this process I just went through would take 6 months to a year.

Byblos wrote:

Just last week I called a specialist and made an appointment, saw him this morning, had x-rays done on my heel, found out I had plantar fasciitis, gave me a shot of cortisone and said to come back in a month. If it's not better, we'll schedule surgery within a week or two

Welcome to the wonderful world of plantar fasciitis, Byblos. I've had it for almost 3 months now. The dr. gave me some stretching exercises, and it is slowly getting better. At the rate I'm improving, I should be almost completely better in another month. It's frustrating, because I can't go jogging with my son.

Since I waited so long before I scheduled a dr. appointment,(thought it may get better on its own) I was in serious pain, before i saw the dr. If I had to wait 3 months, under UHC, to see the dr. I may have been bedridden. It hurt that much to walk.