As a Christian, I defended Obamacare. But I really support single-payer.

[KenH]

"In my view, Christians shouldn’t be satisfied with health-care policy that leaves anyone out, especially those who need care most but can afford it least. Christians should support a universal, single-payer system."

As a Christian, I defended Obamacare. But I really support single-payer. | Physicians for a National Health Program

 

[Reynolds]

"In my view, Christians shouldn’t be satisfied with health-care policy that leaves anyone out, especially those who need care most but can afford it least. Christians should support a universal, single-payer system."

As a Christian, I defended Obamacare. But I really support single-payer. | Physicians for a National Health Program

I support single payer. Christians have no moral obligation to fund state welfare. Christian charity is at the individual and church level.

 

[Reformed]

Taxpayer money should not be used to fund abortions or gender mutilation surgery (also known as gender reassignment surgery). Both of these will be a part of a single-payer system, if not immediately, in time. Therefore, I reject single-payer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Revmitchell]

People want a king. They want someone to take care of them.

 

[James Flagg]

Taxpayer money should not be used to fund abortions or gender mutilation surgery (also known as gender reassignment surgery). Both of these will be a part of a single-payer system, if not immediately, in time. Therefore, I reject single-payer.

It would be a (relatively) simple matter to make the single-payer system treat only reproductive pathologies. Treatment for cancers, birth defects and injuries, but not for abortions, surgical sterilizations, s*x changes, or infertility treatments. If USA ever does get a single payer system, then this is the model I would expect. Aside from the moral question, those treatments are entirely elective and would just put additional burden on what would no doubt be an incomprehensibly expensive program.

 

[Reformed]

It would be a (relatively) simple matter to make the single-payer system treat only reproductive pathologies. Treatment for cancers, birth defects and injuries, but not for abortions, surgical sterilizations, s*x changes, or infertility treatments. If USA ever does get a single payer system, then this is the model I would expect. Aside from the moral question, those treatments are entirely elective and would just put additional burden on what would no doubt be an incomprehensibly expensive program.

The invasive Progressives in this country will insist on covering abortion and gender mutilation. Count on it. To think otherwise is a fantasy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Baptist Believer]

People want a king. They want someone to take care of them.

No, people understand that as a society, we have an obligation to take care of each other. We understand this in so many other parts of society...

We have fire departments, ready to serve the rich woman's mansion or the poor man's shack. We have law enforcement to help preserve order, seek justice, and serve the public regardless of social status, religion, ethnicity or politics. We have public utilities to provide potable water for individuals and enterprises, and remove solid and liquid wastes to create a sanitary environment. We also understand that the elderly, the young, the physically and mentally disabled, and certain other individuals who are not capable of providing for themselves need our assistance. Almost everyone chips in for at least some of these services according to ability and according to usage.

Seriously considering whether or not to have a single-payer system and figuring out the best way to balance mercy and justice is not "wanting a king" nor - going with the biblical allusion - rejecting God. Far from it!

 

[church mouse guy]

Jesus is the Great Physician. He told of the Good Samaritan. Jesus owns the entire universe. Jesus is not a socialist. Uncle Sam is not a doctor and he is broke and deep in debt and cannot come up with 32 trillion dollars in the next ten years.

 

[Reformed]

This is exactly how the Progressives are going to hoodwink Christians to buy into single-payer. "Where is your compassion for your fellow man?" They will repeat it so much that Christians will be shamed by fellow Christians if they do not go along with the most important chink of Socialism's chain. What they do not tell you is the enormous cost that will balloon annually. What they do not tell you is that care will be rationed. It has to be rationed. The law of economics requires it. Most European nations do not have the massive defense appropriations that the United States has. Taxes will rise exponentially. Healthcare professionals will have caps placed on their earnings. The Progressives will control the largest segment of the economy, hence they will control the economy. It is just as bad as Esau bartering his birthright for a bowl of stew. People will trade their liberty for bondage.

 

[Baptist Believer]

This is exactly how the Progressives are going to hoodwink Christians to buy into single-payer.

Single-payer is not inherently evil. It depends upon how it is implemented.

"Where is your compassion for your fellow man?"

I wonder that quite often when I read posts from some of our brothers and sisters here.

They will repeat it so much that Christians will be shamed by fellow Christians if they do not go along with the most important chink of Socialism's chain.

Single-payer is not inherently socialist, although the word "socialist" has pretty much lost most of its meaning since it is used so recklessly in today's political discourse.

What they do not tell you is the enormous cost that will balloon annually.

Our government already pays more for healthcare than just about any other nation in the world - including single-payer countries. Single-payer actually has the ability (if it is implemented correctly) to improve health and bring down costs due to efficiency and earlier intervention into health issues that turn into extremely expensive major diseases.

What they do not tell you is that care will be rationed. It has to be rationed. The law of economics requires it.

All healthcare is rationed. Period. It is either rationed by one's ability to pay, by a hospital that will only treat the uninsured to a level where they are stabilized, or to the level your insurance company will pay.

The claim of "rationing" doesn't have much weight since it is already rationed.

Most European nations do not have the massive defense appropriations that the United States has.

You bring up a good point. In the aftermath of World War II, the US provided most of the serious defense of both Europe and Japan as a consequence of the impoverishment of those nations after the war, and the Soviet threat. As those nations found their economic footing once again and they rebuilt their social structures, they were in the enviable position of being able to divert a significant amount of financial resources toward improving the health of their citizens through medical care.

However, those things have been changing and Europe is still providing reasonably good healthcare - with good outcomes - for their citizens. At the same time, the European model is not the only model. We could adopt a model that provides a single-payer safety net for persons who are critically ill/injured (for instance, for health expenses more than $100,000 for a person per incident) while retaining private insurance for all expenses below $100,000. That will allow a certain level of freedom to choose the level of care you need for normal issues and average surgeries and incidents under a reasonable private insurance payment without bankrupting everyone and their children in the event of a major health crisis. The risk of private insurers would go down tremendously, and so would the cost of the policies under a free market system.

Taxes will rise exponentially. Healthcare professionals will have caps placed on their earnings.

Not if things are implemented properly.

The Progressives will control the largest segment of the economy, hence they will control the economy.

Why do you think non-"progressives" will not have any political status or be able to convince anyone else to vote with them if any form of single-payer insurance is implemented? Don't you have faith in the veracity of your own beliefs?

It is just as bad as Esau bartering his birthright for a bowl of stew. People will trade their liberty for bondage.

Hardly. People are talking about considering single-payer and you are strangely talking about bondage.

 

[InTheLight]

Uncle Sam is not a doctor and he is broke and deep in debt and cannot come up with 32 trillion dollars in the next ten years.

Where did you get that number?

 

[Reynolds]

People want a king. They want someone to take care of them.

Actually, I want the govt to leave me the heck alone. If they refuse to do that, then they can go ahead and take care of me.

 

[Reynolds]

No, people understand that as a society, we have an obligation to take care of each other. We understand this in so many other parts of society...

We have fire departments, ready to serve the rich woman's mansion or the poor man's shack. We have law enforcement to help preserve order, seek justice, and serve the public regardless of social status, religion, ethnicity or politics. We have public utilities to provide potable water for individuals and enterprises, and remove solid and liquid wastes to create a sanitary environment. We also understand that the elderly, the young, the physically and mentally disabled, and certain other individuals who are not capable of providing for themselves need our assistance. Almost everyone chips in for at least some of these services according to ability and according to usage.

Seriously considering whether or not to have a single-payer system and figuring out the best way to balance mercy and justice is not "wanting a king" nor - going with the biblical allusion - rejecting God. Far from it!

If you believe that law enforcement serves without regard to social status, I have Ocean front property in Las Vegas I will sell you.

 

[Reynolds]

Where did you get that number?

I think the truth is that no one has a clue what it would cost. The numbers on paper could be constructed to mean anything. I personally think single payer would be cheaper than what we now have. Healthcare has now worked its way into my county property tax. We now have to pay 3mill levy to subsidize the local hospital, because so many patients are not paying.

 

[church mouse guy]

This is exactly how the Progressives are going to hoodwink Christians to buy into single-payer. "Where is your compassion for your fellow man?" They will repeat it so much that Christians will be shamed by fellow Christians if they do not go along with the most important chink of Socialism's chain. What they do not tell you is the enormous cost that will balloon annually. What they do not tell you is that care will be rationed. It has to be rationed. The law of economics requires it. Most European nations do not have the massive defense appropriations that the United States has. Taxes will rise exponentially. Healthcare professionals will have caps placed on their earnings. The Progressives will control the largest segment of the economy, hence they will control the economy. It is just as bad as Esau bartering his birthright for a bowl of stew. People will trade their liberty for bondage.

It is just greed. People think that you can get something for nothing, a free lunch. Jesus said that if you don't work, you don't eat. When the sooner than later crisis comes in socialized medicine, these same people who call for socialized medicine will say that they are entitled to medicine first because they are superior, Christian, more intelligent, etc.

 

[Reformed]

Single-payer is not inherently evil. It depends upon how it is implemented.

If you are an American you know exactly how it will be implemented. It will become a Progressive sacrament.

Single-payer is not inherently socialist, although the word "socialist" has pretty much lost most of its meaning since it is used so recklessly in today's political discourse.

Single-payer is confiscatory. Socialism is not hard to understand. The government will distribute those things it deems necessary to its citizens. The government will also wield more control over citizens. It can dispense or restrict individual benefits based on how citizens behave. Not towing the statist line? Fewer benefits for you!

Our government already pays more for healthcare than just about any other nation in the world - including single-payer countries. Single-payer actually has the ability (if it is implemented correctly) to improve health and bring down costs due to efficiency and earlier intervention into health issues that turn into extremely expensive major diseases.

If only saying it makes it so. American health care should be totally free market-based. Insurance across state lines. More medical sharing organizations like Medi-Share. More direct primary care services that operate on a monthly fee. Less regulation by the FDA. Never, never, never put a bureaucrat between a patient and his doctor.

All healthcare is rationed. Period. It is either rationed by one's ability to pay, by a hospital that will only treat the uninsured to a level where they are stabilized, or to the level your insurance company will pay.

Implementing a complete market-based approach to health care will allow the consumer to control which medical services they want or need. That is much different than a bureaucrat telling you what you can and cannot do. There is no liberty when the government takes over.

The claim of "rationing" doesn't have much weight since it is already rationed.

Read my previous statement.

You bring up a good point. In the aftermath of World War II, the US provided most of the serious defense of both Europe and Japan as a consequence of the impoverishment of those nations after the war, and the Soviet threat. As those nations found their economic footing once again and they rebuilt their social structures, they were in the enviable position of being able to divert a significant amount of financial resources toward improving the health of their citizens through medical care.

However, those things have been changing and Europe is still providing reasonably good healthcare - with good outcomes - for their citizens. At the same time, the European model is not the only model. We could adopt a model that provides a single-payer safety net for persons who are critically ill/injured (for instance, for health expenses more than $100,000 for a person per incident) while retaining private insurance for all expenses below $100,000. That will allow a certain level of freedom to choose the level of care you need for normal issues and average surgeries and incidents under a reasonable private insurance payment without bankrupting everyone and their children in the event of a major health crisis. The risk of private insurers would go down tremendously, and so would the cost of the policies under a free market system.

Instead of trying to find a socialized plan that will work, try to unrestricted free market. It works every time.

Why do you think non-"progressives" will not have any political status or be able to convince anyone else to vote with them if any form of single-payer insurance is implemented? Don't you have faith in the veracity of your own beliefs?

I have faith in my spiritual beliefs. I have no faith in human government. None at all.

 

[InTheLight]

I think the truth is that no one has a clue what it would cost. The numbers on paper could be constructed to mean anything. I personally think single payer would be cheaper than what we now have. Healthcare has now worked its way into my county property tax. We now have to pay 3mill levy to subsidize the local hospital, because so many patients are not paying.

I've seen 14 trillion over 10 years.
I've seen 24 trillion over 10 years.
I've seen 25 trillion over 10 years.
I've seen 28 trillion over 10 years.

Bernie Sander's plan is like a Cadillac Medicare plan, basically everything covered, nothing out of pocket, no deductibles. It might be possible to get up to $32 trillion over 10 years but I have to believe any single payer plan put forth would not cover as many things as Sanders' plan does, so it wouldn't cost $32 trillion.

 

[church mouse guy]

If you are an American you know exactly how it will be implemented. It will become a Progressive sacrament.



Single-payer is confiscatory. Socialism is not hard to understand. The government will distribute those things it deems necessary to its citizens. The government will also wield more control over citizens. It can dispense or restrict individual benefits based on how citizens behave. Not towing the statist line? Fewer benefits for you!



If only saying it makes it so. American health care should be totally free market-based. Insurance across state lines. More medical sharing organizations like Medi-Share. More direct primary care services that operate on a monthly fee. Less regulation by the FDA. Never, never, never put a bureaucrat between a patient and his doctor.



Implementing a complete market-based approach to health care will allow the consumer to control which medical services they want or need. That is much different than a bureaucrat telling you what you can and cannot do. There is no liberty when the government takes over.



Read my previous statement.




Instead of trying to find a socialized plan that will work, try to unrestricted free market. It works every time.



I have faith in my spiritual beliefs. I have no faith in human government. None at all.

Well said! The proponents of socialized medicine cannot name one place where socialized medicine has been successful. It is all about rationing medicine in favor of themselves at the expense of others, even if that means death for others.

 

[Reynolds]

Well said! The proponents of socialized medicine cannot name one place where socialized medicine has been successful. It is all about rationing medicine in favor of themselves at the expense of others, even if that means death for others.

Whatever. Rationing medicine happens now, right here in the US of A. My friend's insurance company just told him they are not paying for a cancer treatment that costs about 400,000 per month. The treatment has a 3% longer life expectancy than the treatment they approved that cost about 10,000 per month. I personally think the insurance company made the right decision.

 

[church mouse guy]

Whatever. Rationing medicine happens now, right here in the US of A. My friend's insurance company just told him they are not paying for a cancer treatment that costs about 400,000 per month. The treatment has a 3% longer life expectancy than the treatment they approved that cost about 10,000 per month. I personally think the insurance company made the right decision.

So you think that insurance companies are the same as the federal government? Whatever.