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

[Baptist Believer]

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

Ah, but you make my point for me.

Law enforcement SHOULD serve without regard to social status - that is the American social ideal. That's why it is so objectionable when they often do not.

 

[Baptist Believer]

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

I am an American (and a Texan) and I know that if it becomes law without the right wing engaging in the discussion (other than simply screaming "No", it will become a left-leaning institution if so-called conservatives refuse to engage to work out a solution.

That's the whole point of my post. If you don't want a left-wing program, then engage in the national discussion and propose a better way.

Single-payer is confiscatory.

Taxes and tariffs are part of the bargain we make when we have a government. The government provides all kinds of services for our taxes, so we can't claim that the government simply confiscates our assets.

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.

In a broad sense, that is how all governments work, including the Kingdom of God (depending upon how you define wielding "control."

Not towing the statist line? Fewer benefits for you!

So you are an anarchist?

If only saying it makes it so.

So I guess the long-term results from other countries across the world should be ignored then.,,

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.

Not bad ideas. I actually have very good insurance through my employer, but I pay my primary care physician completely outside of insurance (they won't cover it) through a monthly fee to the tune of $1,800/year out of my own pocket. Why? Because the doctor is much better than one I can get through my insurance network.

Less regulation by the FDA. Never, never, never put a bureaucrat between a patient and his doctor.

Like it or not, the FDA serves a valid purpose. And in regard to a bureaucrat between a patient and a doctor, I agree. But today - with insurance - we have an insurance company between a patient and doctor. That's why my primary care physician stopped accepting insurance. So unless you pay everything out of pocket (no insurance), you are going to have someone between you and your physician.

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.

The way I hear your perspective described (by its advocates!) is that men should not have to may for maternity and "women's" health claims, or for sick people. Since all of us have been born at least once, and the majority of us will have a major illness in our lives, that view of insurance is ridiculous. It really isn't insurance.

Perhaps you mean something else by your statement. I'm interested in reading about it if you care to share.

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

Yet God has established human governments to enable human flourishing. In the United States, each citizen is a member of the government. If you do not do your part to make it better, then you are abdicating your responsibility of serving God through righteous and merciful rule.

 

[Reynolds]

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

Same problem, Private or public.

 

[Revmitchell]

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 an obligation to be productive in society and not to needlessly be a drain on others when we can do for ourselves. Government is the absolute worst way to help someone.

 

[FollowTheWay]

"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

Absolutely. But most here don't want to spend their money to help the needy in America. They'd rather pour it down the rat hole of the Pentagon to fund more wars.

 

[FollowTheWay]

We have an obligation to be productive in society and not to needlessly be a drain on others when we can do for ourselves. Government is the absolute worst way to help someone.

Then have your church kick in the $200,000/yr. it would cost every Christian church in America simply to replace Obamacare.

 

[Reformed]

I am an American (and a Texan) and I know that if it becomes law without the right wing engaging in the discussion (other than simply screaming "No", it will become a left-leaning institution if so-called conservatives refuse to engage to work out a solution.

The idea of socialized medicine is a Progressive idea from inception. The only thing the Right can do is slow its initial impact. Look at Medicare and Medicaid. The federal government will always expand its reach. Conservatives have been fighting, and losing, the limited government fight for decades.

That's the whole point of my post. If you don't want a left-wing program, then engage in the national discussion and propose a better way.

True ideological Conservatives have been offering a better way. No one listens to them. Especially Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan.

Taxes and tariffs are part of the bargain we make when we have a government. The government provides all kinds of services for our taxes, so we can't claim that the government simply confiscates our assets.

Ideological Conservatives believe in limited government, not no government. Healthcare should be a private market function.

In a broad sense, that is how all governments work, including the Kingdom of God (depending upon how you define wielding "control."

As a Leftist, I am sure you will enjoy such control. In the macro that is not how the American republic has worked. Liberty has been this nation's hallmark. The more government increases its reach, the less liberty American citizens have. Once liberty is gone, all that is left is tyranny. Sic semper tyrannis.

So you are an anarchist?

To oppose tyranny does not make one an anarchist.

So I guess the long-term results from other countries across the world should be ignored then.,,

Ignored? No. Understanding they are operating under foreign governments with different agendas and values? Absolutely!

Not bad ideas. I actually have very good insurance through my employer, but I pay my primary care physician completely outside of insurance (they won't cover it) through a monthly fee to the tune of $1,800/year out of my own pocket. Why? Because the doctor is much better than one I can get through my insurance network.

Good for you for employing your own free market principles.

Like it or not, the FDA serves a valid purpose. And in regard to a bureaucrat between a patient and a doctor, I agree. But today - with insurance - we have an insurance company between a patient and doctor. That's why my primary care physician stopped accepting insurance. So unless you pay everything out of pocket (no insurance), you are going to have someone between you and your physician.

Before the Unaffordable Care Act, it was a level of degrees of the government getting between you and your doctor. I do advocate paying everything out of pocket. That is called the free market. Take the employer out of the broker business. Allow consumers to keep all of their paychecks. They can then negotiate with doctors and/or health plans on their own. Competition works every time it is tried. Of course, that will not happen. The government will always find a way to stick its nose into the free market. So, because of government largesse, it should be limited at every turn.

The way I hear your perspective described (by its advocates!) is that men should not have to may for maternity and "women's" health claims, or for sick people. Since all of us have been born at least once, and the majority of us will have a major illness in our lives, that view of insurance is ridiculous. It really isn't insurance.

Perhaps you mean something else by your statement. I'm interested in reading about it if you care to share.

I would love for the free market to control every aspect of healthcare, but I already said that is not going to happen. So, how do we limit government involvement in order to preserve liberty? Consumers should have access to various types of health plans, just as they do mobile phone carriers. They can negotiate with brokers, health care sharing organizations, direct access networks, individual doctors et. al. If the employer model is kept, employers can provide each employee with an annual contribution amount. However, there is no employer mandate and no fine on individuals who do not choose to participate. Major medical plans can cover hospitalization and surgeries. The free market can come up with workable solutions if it is taken seriously. No person will be left without healthcare. No one is left without it today. Yes. If you are uninsured it is harder than for a person who has insurance, but not always. Medicaid exists for the poor and indigent. I am not suggesting we should kick the poor to the curb. The Unaffordable Care Act was passed to supposedly provide coverage for up to 30,000,000 uninsured Americans. The CDC estimates that 28.2 million Americans under the age of 65 are uninsured. So, it is basically a wash. The Unaffordable Care Act has traded who is uninsured. It has also stymied small business growth and mandated coverage of abortion services. You would have us believe that the government can provide us with a healthcare utopia, where Right and Left hold hands and sing Kumbaya while they provide glorious healthcare for all at a bargain price. I do not know what you are smoking down there in Texas, but I hope the government is giving you a tax break on it.

Yet God has established human governments to enable human flourishing. In the United States, each citizen is a member of the government. If you do not do your part to make it better, then you are abdicating your responsibility of serving God through righteous and merciful rule.

Thank you for the civics lesson. As Christians, we are to obey the authorities over us unless those authorities countermand God's commands. If a single-payer system becomes law, Christians are bound to it, so long as they are not sinning by doing so. I have always believed thus. But while I still have freedom of speech, I will employ it in opposition to the growth of the federal government and the increasing servitude of this nation's citizens.

 

[Revmitchell]

Absolutely. But most here don't want to spend their money to help the needy in America. They'd rather pour it down the rat hole of the Pentagon to fund more wars.

There is nothing true about this post. It is guilty of the black and white informal fallacy and lacks any substance. In short it is nothing but DNC talking points.

 

[FollowTheWay]

There is nothing true about your reply.

 

[church mouse guy]

There is nothing true about your reply.

I can't tell you how much I admire engineers so I have to ask you if you believe in the total depravity of the human race?

Jeremiah 17:9 (KJV) The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it?

 

[Revmitchell]

The primary problem with government controlled health care is the loss of freedom. If the government controls health care then they get to tell you what to do. How to eat. etc.

Liberals try to wrap it up all in the banner of helping people. They do not give a rats patuty about helping people. They want to control people. The Democrat party is today's fascists. If you say the wrong thing or hold to the values different form theirs they want to beat you down, throw you in jail, destroy your business, etc.

Single payer health care is a trojan horse. They want to impose their ideas and values on everyone. It is just one means of doing that. Don't believe it for a single moment. Its a lie straight from the pit of hell.

 

[Deacon]

The government has done such an exceptional job with Social Security, why not let them take over the greater potential debt burden of health care?

Single-payer health care sounds good (especially for the physicians who are greatly over-burdened with regulations) but it will bite us rather quickly.

Rob

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I'm cracking up.

"The best way a Christian can show he cares is to let the rich people take care of it".

LOL. The politics of envy. Let someone else take care of it. I'm ashamed.

 

[Reynolds]

Ah, but you make my point for me.

Law enforcement SHOULD serve without regard to social status - that is the American social ideal. That's why it is so objectionable when they often do not.

Absolutely. But most here don't want to spend their money to help the needy in America. They'd rather pour it down the rat hole of the Pentagon to fund more wars.

If we did not pour money into the Pentagon, we would in short order cease to be a nation.

 

[FollowTheWay]

I can't tell you how much I admire engineers so I have to ask you if you believe in the total depravity of the human race?

Jeremiah 17:9 (KJV) The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it?

I believe in either original sin which babies are born with or that they have a sin predisposition that will cause them to sin at a very young age. I also believe that the Holy Spirit draws these sinners to an encounter with saving grace offered freely through faith. Frankly, I used to be an ardent anti-Calvinist but now believe that both Calvinism and free will are Biblical. In my view, it comes down to the foreknowledge of God versus predestination. I regard that as a mystery but one that it isn't significant for me to understand. I absolutely do not believe in partial atonement but actually that goes with other 5 points.

Thanks for the compliment about engineers. In the 4th grade I said I wanted to be an engineer while everyone else wanted to be firemen or baseball players. I was fascinated with Kennedy's challenge to put a man on the moon. I ended up getting a MS in Eng. and retired last year after an engineering career of 40 years starting with a NASA contractor but then primarily with AT&T related companies starting with Bell Labs.

 

[FollowTheWay]

If we did not pour money into the Pentagon, we would in short order cease to be a nation.

It's going down a black hole. A lot of pentagon funding can't be accounted for. Rumsfeld said $2.3T the day before 9/11. Now it's a lot more. Besides that, why do we have to spend as much as the 8 next highest military spending countries in the world? That includes Russia, China, the UK, Germany, etc? Why can't we live in peace with our allies instead of starting needless wars like the ones in Afghanistan and Iraq, the two longest wars in U.S. history. We are leaving those countries and ourselves in a much worse condition after the war than before it. Instead of making the world a safer place those wars made it far more dangerous.

 

[just-want-peace]

FollowTheWay sez: "Frankly, I used to be an ardent anti-Calvinist but now believe that both Calvinism and free will are Biblical. In my view, it comes down to the foreknowledge of God versus predestination. I regard that as a mystery but one that it isn't significant for me to understand."

The Rapture can't be more than a coupla weeks away --- I totally agree w/ FTW!!

 

[FollowTheWay]

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.

Having American healthcare support only "reproductive pathologies" has never been proposed by anyone. This argument doesn't make sense.

 

[church mouse guy]

Of course, the USA must faithfully implement the death panel part of the program to bring costs under control and to genetically modify the population in order to cleanse the deplorable elements, especially those in flyover country.

 

[James Flagg]

Having American healthcare support only "reproductive pathologies" has never been proposed by anyone. This argument doesn't make sense.

I never said that it had been proposed by anyone. I was simply saying that it would be possible and simple compared to the rest of the morass of taxation and legislation required to pass single payer.

While Sanders' plan does include virtually every medical treatment available, I don't think anyone really expects that government funded abortions and sterilizations will ever pass in the USA.

Pardon the pedantry (or don't), but mine was not an argument at all, but an opinion.