Health Insurance?

[Singalphile]

Well Throm, if you would prefer to allow countless Americans to die or become disabled from diseases and/or health conditions which require surgery because they cannot pay for these services, rather than have a universal health care system supported by the people of the U.S.A ....

... Canadian citizens and senior citizens ... can live our lives in relatively good health thanks to universal health care. If this provision were not available, I know I would likely be dead by now and my wife severely disabled.

I would appeal to the "socialist calculation argument" advanced by ludwig von mises in the 1920's as one of the several reasons why I think the prices for medical care would be significantly lower in a truly free market for health care.

It is of course impossible to know any of these things, which is what makes this debate and politics in general pretty frustrating. One side or the other (or both) always just says "it would be better" or "it would be worse". And what can you say to that except, "uh uh!"

[thrombomodulin]

Of course the discernment of which system is better able to provide health care to the needy is not necessarily the criteria by which a christian should make his judgement of what ought to be done. In my opinion the principle of not coveting the things my neighbor has and to refrain from appropriating those things for myself or for the poor applies. That is to say, the idea that we should not steal (in my understanding taxation for all purposes other than the administration of criminal justice falls into this category).

[Singalphile]

Yes, of course. I generally do agree with and appreciate your posts on these matters.

[steve7150]

We can regard it that way if we wish. I doubt that we "should" regard it that way. "Should" we regard the income tax system as a form of theft? Or is that not to be considered since it is so deeply and firmly entrenched?







It's good to hear your perspective Paidion. I'm sympathetic to the less government is better view, but the fact is that most people on this earth belong to the kingdom of this world not the kingdom of God. So what about these folks and their families?
If someone urgently needs medical help they may end up in a hospital which is regulated by the government. If they need a doctor , this doctor would be licensed by the state so realistically all of us will interact with "a" government regulated or licensed medical person or entity. Are we going to refuse the help because of our biblical understanding, are we going to refuse the help for our kids?

[thrombomodulin]

Steve7150,

If I understand your post right, you are saying christians should refuse health care from a government licensed doctor. On what basis do you think it is inappropriate to use the services of a doctor, if one also thinks that caesar is not authorized to regulate this industry (e.g. by requiring a license to practice)? I am not seeing why this conclusion would follow.

[steve7150]

Re: Health Insurance?

New postby thrombomodulin on Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:53 pm
Steve7150,

If I understand your post right, you are saying christians should refuse health care from a government licensed doctor. On what basis do you think it is inappropriate to use the services of a doctor, if one also thinks that caesar is not authorized to regulate this industry (e.g. by requiring a license to practice)? I am not seeing why this conclusion would follow.

User avatar
thrombomodulin





I meant to convey that regardless of our beliefs about limited government etc we can't help but interacting with the medical industry which is govt regulated and licensed. So whatever system is currently used it's still controlled by the govt in one way or the other and we have no choice but to use it.

[schoel]

If it is immoral to force anyone to pay for someone else, then your whole system of income tax is immoral. Do you oppose that as strongly as you oppose universal health care? No government is able to function without having the people as a whole pay for the service to others. Do you belong to the Libertarian Party? If you oppose government taxation and other practices which force all people to pay for public services, then that would seem to be the political Party for you.

I oppose all taxation due to the following root principle, which I take to be a Biblical one.
- If it is immoral for me to take my neighbor's possessions against his will, it is also immoral for me engage a 3rd party for the same purpose (government, the state, the IRS, etc)

My allegiance is with the Kingdom of God through Christ; therefore, I have no interest in any of the political parties. This hearts of this world will be changed by Christ and his church alone.

That will not happen in the Kingdom of God. But as long as we still live in the world, and the Kingdom of God has not yet been fully established, it seems that Democracy is a superior system to Anarchy.

Perhaps some definitions may be helpful here:
My version of a stateless world (anarchy) is this:
- Individuals are not free to harm others or their property. Outside of that, individuals have the freedom to act as they see fit.

Please don't confuse the above view with an approval of all that is wicked. I am submitted to the righteous requirements set forth by Christ and work to persuade (not force) others to join me.

Since sin in this world is inevitable until Christ purges from creation it at the end, the question becomes:
How can we best limit the affects and damage of sin while allowing people to exercise their God-given freedom?

While this vision will not usher in the kingdom of God by any means (no political system will), what it does have going for it is a decentralization of power that limits the consequences of sin.
In a decentralized society, a sinful man's affects and damage on society are relatively limited.
However, with a centralized state, sinfulness is combined with centralized power, force and has far-reaching and devastating effects. This is as true with a democracy as it is with a monarchy or totalitarian state.

[Paidion]

My version of a stateless world (anarchy) is this:
- Individuals are not free to harm others or their property. Outside of that, individuals have the freedom to act as they see fit.

"Anarchy" means "no rule". Thus with anarchy everyone does as he wishes. There is no government.

But your version requires: "Individuals are not free to harm others or their property."

Who is going to prevent them from harming others or their property, if there is no government?

[schoel]

Who is going to prevent them from harming others or their property, if there is no government?

This is one of the most common objections to this position…I’ll give some feedback, but I don’t want to derail this thread from its intended subject

(1) Does the existence of the state, modern or ancient, provide more protection for individuals and their property than otherwise? Note that 99% of police work in the US and Canada is after the crime has already happened. The common assumption that police “prevent” crime is primarily a myth. The real and ultimate responsibility of crime prevention is first owned by individuals and their neighbors/community.

(2) Do we need a centralized authority to locate aggressors and adjudicate claims of harm or theft? Could a decentralized, choice driven network of private security companies and adjudicators accomplish the same function, but more efficiently? See this article for further detailed reading on this if interested

...

However, to return back to the topic of this thread:

If a state run health system provides by the forceful expropriation of funds from individuals, with or without their consent, then any service it provides is tainted by the immorality of how it provided that service in the first place.

The ends cannot justify the means and this is why government provided “free” health care is ultimately immoral.

[Paidion]

(1) Does the existence of the state, modern or ancient, provide more protection for individuals and their property than otherwise? Note that 99% of police work in the US and Canada is after the crime has already happened. The common assumption that police “prevent” crime is primarily a myth. The real and ultimate responsibility of crime prevention is first owned by individuals and their neighbors/community.

What about deterrance? If you know you are likely to be heavily fined and/or imprisoned if you rob people or injure them, are you not less likely to carry out your intentions? Will you not be more likely to commit a crime if you think you can get away with it? Are not the actions of the police a reasonably strong deterrant?

If a state run health system provides by the forceful expropriation of funds from individuals, with or without their consent, then any service it provides is tainted by the immorality of how it provided that service in the first place.

You believe it is so tainted. I believe it isn't. What WOULD be immoral is to do away with government, so that there would be no controls on crime, and no means of providing for a somewhat more equal distribution of the country's goods, as well as more equal opportunity for the individual to provide for himself and his family.
This is morality according to the apostle Paul:

For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich. And in this I give advice: It is to your advantage not only to be doing what you began and were desiring to do a year ago; but now you also must complete the doing of it; that as there was a readiness to desire it, so there also may be a completion out of what you have. For if there is first a willing mind, it is accepted according to what one has, and not according to what he does not have. For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened; but by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may supply their lack, that their abundance also may supply your lack—that there may be equality. As it is written, "He who gathered much had nothing left over, and he who gathered little had no lack." (2 Corinthians 10-15)

The ends cannot justify the means and this is why government provided “free” health care is ultimately immoral.

The end CAN and always DOES justify the means whenever the means is not unrighteous, or self-serving, or immoral. I say that in the case of universal health care, the means is not immoral. I know that you believe that it is.