I don’t think that was Christs idea of charity and compassion, but whatever.”

Well, I don’t claim to know the mind of Christ, but the New Testament is very anti wealth and pro-caring for the poor. Modern Christians often find it convenient to ignore these facts, especially rich televangelists.

I don’t think that was Christs idea of charity and compassion, but whatever.

Is there a basic level of care we are willing to fund for all citizens, and if so, what are its parameters? It has both moral and financial implications.

Until that is resolved, you cannot realistically hope to enact single payer with any hope of containing costs or significantly transition the government out of what we currently have.

CJD

Regarding the sick, I would respectfully submit that Jesus would have healed them. I don’t see a line forming to do that for free. What, you’re not ready to volunteer? Ah, but you’re prepared to take what isn’t yours, and give it to some-one else. How very, um, Christian, of you. Proclaiming morality while declaring for yourself the right to deprive others is a risky proposal. Be the first to live what you propose, give your money to help the sick. You know, that line, “Let him without sin cast the first stone.”

If Jesus was about one thing, it was about helping the poor. Greedily proclaiming that “wealth” should be considered sacred and not people is, well, not very Christian.

In that case, I prefer the later once they have spent their own earning on their care. If they don’t consider it worth the product of their labor, then it isn’t worth mine either.

For the rest of us, currently healthy, I prefer a voluntary choice, not coerced or bribed, to buy or not to buy insurance. It is a personal risk and a personal choice. All health care choices should be treated equally by tax policies, not with massive incentives skewing the system toward making us dependent on employers, who don’t have our interests at heart. I would like to see not only the President’s proposal to treat privately purchased insurance with the same tax treatment as employer covered care–it is afterall only fair–but also the same treatment of those who chose to save and self-insure instead.

If a 21 year old put pre-tax dollars into an untaxed investment account to save for his care, and he retained average health through middle-age, he would have a nest egg that would, in a pinch provide him with healthcare comparable to the upper limits of the best policies that can be bought. That is a choice that he should be free to make without bias in the tax system favoring him putting his care under the control of healthcare bureacracies–which is what happens with “health plans.”

Freedom has it’s risks but taking responsibilty for ones own decisions and risks is what makes an adult and fosters the attainment of the greatest human potential.

But it truly sucks for those with a pre-existing medical condition who cannot get insured. Maybe the governemnt can have a provision for insurance for those who cannot get insured by private payers. Then at least it would force everyone to purchase one before they get to suck at governement teat.

Some would find a problem with imposing a “moral” obligation on taxpayers. The issue is simply that you are seeing a “right” to money that is not lawfully yours, and are prepared to make a seizure of that property for your own uses, all the while applauding yourselves for your “morality”.

It’s good to know that you’re out there, helping your fellow man, when he shows up looking for medical care. You mean to say you don’t do that kind of work? Well, color me surprised… Your interest must not extend that far.