Is it moral...?

feral

Dostoyevsky was right
Jan 8, 2003
3,368
344
✟12,716.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
First off, this question is primarily directed at individuals living in the United States, but anyone is welcome to contribute.

My question -- is it moral for the U.S., a country that possess a great deal of wealth and resources, not to provide universal health care?

Now, I've heard the arguments against it before, but they are all very shallow and don't hold up well. "It's too expensive!" -- are you willing to look your loved ones in the eyes and tell them dollars are more valuable than people? "There is no benefit to wealthy individuals and corporations" -- on the contrary. The uninsured make up the majority of those doing your grunt work. The people who fry your burgers, take your orders, sell you shirts, gas up your tank and yes, even watch your children all make up the bulk of the uninsured population. You may not care about us as people, but you care when that cook with untreated pneumonia coughs on your plate of fettucine alfredo or when your nanny with the flu sneezes in the faces of your children. In addition, what company prefers to have employees who are always fatigued, zoning out, calling in sick and coming in late because of untreated minor illness? "Universal health care will create long waits in the doctor's office" -- Could be, but I can assure you, as an uninsured person I'd rather have to wait my turn and be patient than suffer without end because health care is too expensive and unavailable. "Things are already being done to help" -- True, in some cases. In Michigan, you can qualify for free insurance if you're making less than $3,500 a year. What if you're making $5,000, $10,000 or $15,000? Out of luck. These methods alleviate guilt but don't do anything to help those who are truly trying to better themselves through work or education.

I don't want to know it it's convenient or if it'll help the rich get richer, I want to know what the moral and ethical implications are, and whether refusing to meet the needs of the poor is something Jesus would approve of. What do you think?

For your reference, the number of uninsured persons in the U.S. in 2003 was 45,000,000. 8.5 million of these were children. That's 15.6 percent of the American population, in case you were wondering. The source for this stat is the U.S. Census Bureau
 

Upisoft

CEO of a waterfal
Feb 11, 2006
4,885
131
Orbiting the Sun
✟20,777.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Good thought.
Universal healthcare is a good idea.
But...
A related question: is it moral to steal?

Who would you take from (steal from) in order to provide for those without
"To steal" = "To take from them without their knowledge".

As long as the tax collectors don't sneak in your house to take the money it is not theft.
 
Upvote 0

Merlin

Paradigm Buster
Sep 29, 2005
3,873
845
Avalon Island
✟17,437.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
"To steal" = "To take from them without their knowledge".
So, I can take any of your posessions or money and so long as you have knowledge of it, it's OK?

As long as the tax collectors don't sneak in your house to take the money it is not theft.

So long as someone else does the taking, it's ok?
 
Upvote 0

theeyesoftammyfaye

no parking baby - no parking on the dance floor
Nov 18, 2003
2,368
222
43
Austin, TX
Visit site
✟18,673.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
So, I can take any of your posessions or money and so long as you have knowledge of it, it's OK?



So long as someone else does the taking, it's ok?

and how do you propose that you, as an individual, pay for everything YOU benefit from by paying taxes?

do you drive on public streets? take public transport? do your children go to public schools? do you use public utilities? are you defended by a tax-supported military? do any of your children go to college and receive federal financail aide? did you? heck, did you or any of your children go to a public university? do you drink tap water from a water treatment plant paid for by tax dollars? do you have your garbage collected and deposited in a landfill paid for with public money?

if you answered 'yes' to any of these, and i'm assuming you would, could you please explain how YOU would pay for ANY of the services out of your pocket. let's be honest, the $ deducted in taxes from your pay check wouldn't even START to cover the vast amount of benefits you directly receive from the collective tax money collected and used by the government.

and, of course, in response to the OP, YES, it is highly immoral for the richest nation in the world to have millions of citizens go without medical care because they can't afford to pay for it.
immoral and bad public policy.
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Good thought.
Universal healthcare is a good idea.
But...
A related question: is it moral to steal?

Who would you take from (steal from) in order to provide for those without
Taxation is not theft. It's part of the contract of living in a society that you agree to play by the rules of that society, including paying the taxes legally levied by that society.
 
Upvote 0

Merlin

Paradigm Buster
Sep 29, 2005
3,873
845
Avalon Island
✟17,437.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Taxation is not theft. It's part of the contract of living in a society that you agree to play by the rules of that society, including paying the taxes legally levied by that society.


So, you can justify the taking of that which is not yours.
I repeat the question,
Who will you take from?
 
Upvote 0

Battie

Veteran
Dec 6, 2004
1,531
158
38
Northern Virginia
Visit site
✟9,989.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
So, you can justify the taking of that which is not yours.
I repeat the question,
Who will you take from?
They can take it from me.

What do I care if I have to give up a few extra dollars so that people who work just as hard as anyone but don't have the greatest jobs in the world can have access to medical care?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Pepperoni

(clever saying goes here)
Feb 22, 2006
1,553
365
58
The Great Lake State
✟18,411.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
The uninsured make up the majority of those doing your grunt work. The people who fry your burgers, take your orders, sell you shirts, gas up your tank and yes, even watch your children all make up the bulk of the uninsured population.
You forgot one very important segment of society--the small business-owner and/or the self-employed.

I think the simplistic solution to this is to no longer rely on employers for health insurance. There's no reason for that to continue. In fact, it's not continuing. Fewer and fewer employers are offering those kinds of benefits as it is, and it won't be long before only the very wealthiest corporations can afford it anyway.

Health insurance could--and should--be bought and sold the same way car and life insurance is: by the private individual.
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
So, you can justify the taking of that which is not yours.
By living as part of a society that has laws and a taxation system you agree to abide by those laws and pay those taxes. It's not without consent because you have given your consent by being a resident of that society.

I repeat the question,
Who will you take from?
Those who pay taxes, in proportion to their tax liabilities.
 
Upvote 0

theeyesoftammyfaye

no parking baby - no parking on the dance floor
Nov 18, 2003
2,368
222
43
Austin, TX
Visit site
✟18,673.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
You forgot one very important segment of society--the small business-owner and/or the self-employed.

I think the simplistic solution to this is to no longer rely on employers for health insurance. There's no reason for that to continue. In fact, it's not continuing. Fewer and fewer employers are offering those kinds of benefits as it is, and it won't be long before only the very wealthiest corporations can afford it anyway.

Health insurance could--and should--be bought and sold the same way car and life insurance is: by the private individual.

do you have health insurance through your employer? does your husband? if SO, i hope the two of you will immediately drop that insurance. i mean, after all, you should stand on principle! it'd be highly hypocritical for you to say 'oh it shouldn't be this way, we shouldn't be doing X because it's not right.' all the while benefiting from X.

like a guy who used to post on here from canada. he was completely opposed to universal health care. and where do you think he went the minute he or his son fell ill? to public clinics.

and if you DON'T have health insurance through your employer, well, i sure hope you don't come down with a debilitating disease. i mean unless you want your family's life ruined by medical bills. who needs a house, anyways?
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Health insurance could--and should--be bought and sold the same way car and life insurance is: by the private individual.
That offers no possibility for the high-risk individual. A collective arrangement (whether employers insurance or state healthcare) enables high risk individuals to be covered by bundling them up with low risk individuals.

Individual health insurance does not (and cannot) cover them except at prohibative cost.
 
Upvote 0

Lifesaver

Fides et Ratio
Jan 8, 2004
6,855
288
38
São Paulo, Brazil
✟16,097.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
The attempt to provide universal healthcare has only one effect: the intensification of disease and poverty.

It encourages disease and carelessness, discourages health, punishes capital accumulation and mis-allocates capital where it will not satisfy the people's most urgent needs. Plus, government officials have no means of knowing whether their expenditures are worth their cost or not (afterall, it is only the market mechanism of profit and loss which allows the entrepeneur to know whether the resources he used could or could not, according to the consumers, whom he serves, have been better used in some other project). On top of that, they have an incentive to spend the money badly (it is harder to spend the money well than badly; and they will gain nothing by spending it well). This ensures that the government program will be wasteful and inefficient, throwing away what could have been used to improve people's living conditions.

For all that, universal healthcare can only make society as a whole worse off, even in the eyes of those who championed the program in the first place.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
The attempt to provide universal healthcare has only one effect: the intensification of disease and poverty.

It encourages disease and carelessness, discourages health, punishes capital accumulation and mis-allocates capital where it will not satisfy the people's most urgent needs. Plus, government officials have no means of knowing whether their expenditures are worth their cost or not (afterall, it is only the market mechanism of profit and loss which allows the entrepeneur to know whether the resources he used could or could not, according to the consumers, whom he serves, have been better used in some other project). On top of that, they have an incentive to spend the money badly (it is harder to spend the money well than badly; and they will gain nothing by spending it well). This ensures that the government program will be wasteful and inefficient, throwing away what could have been used to improve people's living conditions.

For all that, universal healthcare can only make society as a whole worse off, even in the eyes of those who championed the program in the first place.
Do you have some evidence for this?

Countries like the UK and Australia (for all the limitations of their respective healthcare systems) provide, overall, better care for a lot less money than is spent on health in the US.
 
Upvote 0

Upisoft

CEO of a waterfal
Feb 11, 2006
4,885
131
Orbiting the Sun
✟20,777.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So, I can take any of your posessions or money and so long as you have knowledge of it, it's OK?
Try it if you want a nice hole in your head. :)

Seriously, if it is legal, then it is OK. If it's not legal I suppose the right word is robbery, but my English isn't so good to put my life on that. :)

So long as someone else does the taking, it's ok?
If it is legal it is OK.
 
Upvote 0

Lifesaver

Fides et Ratio
Jan 8, 2004
6,855
288
38
São Paulo, Brazil
✟16,097.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Ebia, the healthcare system of the USA is one of the most heavily regulated in the planet. Regulations, which cartelize the sector, always benefit the few providers by allowing their price to soar. And then people must pay most of their hard-earned salary to get a simple prescription for a common pill.

Why the price of healthcare is higher in the US than the UK today is a question of economic history, the answer to which would require going through a lot of historical data which I do not possess.

What economics proper can say is this: if the UK did not have universal health care, its population would live better.

And the conclusions of economic science are arrived at deductively from the category of human action; they do not depend on the contingencies of history (in other words, statistics and empirical evidence in general are useless when it comes to economics).
 
Upvote 0

salida

Veteran
Jun 14, 2006
4,305
278
✟6,243.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Expensive? Yes, this is a real issue. For example, if they are going to take out much more taxes - than I'm not interested. Also, how would the quality be? My understand it wouldn't be as good.

I would like it too - but our taxes here are great compared to other countries. I don't want half my paycheck going to taxes over it. Its very difficult now.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums