Health Insurance?

[dwilkins]

I'm not a fan of insurance in most cases because you will usually not get out of it what you put in (if you did, all of the insurance companies would go broke). I am especially antagonistic to the idea that the government can mandate you to have insurance of any kind. For healthcare, I'd rather have a cash only system and a catastrophic insurance option if people really wanted it. In any case, not taxing health insurance as income is what caused the market to skew so far that it is completely broken. I'd also suggest that laws requiring treatment are fair as long as those laws allow for promissory notes to pay for the treatment. A major problem is that people can walk away from health care debt (especially in America if they are illegal aliens, and thus ghosts).

Doug

[schoel]

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?

Deterrence, like the adjudication of claims, is an important function in a society. However, why must it be provided by a monopolized service, funded through force?
Just because a service is important to the functioning of society, doesn't mean it can't be provided through voluntary contracts with private organizations. Each individual/family unit is free to choose the organization that best suits there needs, or forgo it altogether. This allows for the service to be provided, but without the immoral theft to fund it.

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:
...

Your statement wrongly assumes the following:
1) That a state-run monopoly of security services, funded by forceful extraction, is the only option to provide control/protection/deterrence against crime.
2) "Equal distribution" by by forceful extraction is a valid exercise of authority by the state.

Regarding the passage you quote from 2 Corinthians:
1) The context of 2 Corinthians involves Christians choosing of their own volition to share with fellow Christians in need. Paul bends over backwards to assure the Corinthians that the gift and its amount is their choice.

8:8 I am not saying this as a command, but I am testing the genuineness of your love by comparison with the eagerness of others.
9:5 ...so this may be ready as a generous gift and not as something you feel forced to do.
9:7 Each one of you should give just as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, because God loves a cheerful giver.
9:11 You will be enriched in every way so that you may be generous on every occasion ...

2) If righteousness can't be implemented at the end of a gun, how can charitable love be forced in the same manner?
3) Forceful extraction for charitable purposes robs the provider of opportunity to choose to give and the reward that goes with it.

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.

I see the taxation necessary to fund state-run health care as theft, therefore END cannot justify the tainted MEANS by which to provide it.
I've not yet heard an argument that shows the above principle to be false.

[Paidion]

1) The context of 2 Corinthians involves Christians choosing of their own volition to share with fellow Christians in need. Paul bends over backwards to assure the Corinthians that the gift and its amount is their choice.

That is correct. Yet, the principle "That there might be equality" is the same.

[thrombomodulin]

Paidion,

I would like to better understand the basis of your judgements. Can you please tell me how you would ethically judge these cases, where benefits are assessed ex-ante, not ex-post.

1. A private citizen compels the purchase of health insurance - he believes it benefits some persons compelled to purchase it, but harms others.
2. A private citizen compels the purchase of health insurance - he believes it benefits all persons compelled to purchase it.
3. An unelected dictator compels the purchase of health insurance - he believes it benefits some persons compelled to purchase it, but harms others.
4. An unelected dictator compels the purchase of health insurance - he believes it benefits all persons compelled to purchase it.
5. An official elected by 50% + 1 vote compels the purchase of health insurance - he believes it benefits some persons compelled to purchase it, but harms others.
6. An official elected by 50% + 1 vote compels the purchase of health insurance - he believes it benefits all persons compelled to purchase it.

My present understanding is that you disapprove of #1, and approve of #6 based on the quotes below.

Thanks,
Peter

As a private business owner, you have neither the right nor the power to "compel" the people of Lake County to buy service from you. The Government, on the other hand is not a private business.

I see no inconsistency in believing that governments belong to the kingdoms of this world, and yet may make decisions which benefit the people under their jurisdiction. Where such decision benefit the people, I support them.

[Paidion]

My present understanding is that you disapprove of #1, and approve of #6 based on the quotes below.

I disapprove of all of them. For none of them is a government though #5 and #6 may each have been elected as one member of a government.

After a duly-elected governmental body comes together and discusses/debates the issue of universal healh care, and comes to a consensus that such a plan would be of benefit to the people of the province (or state as the case may be), I would approve their decision.

[thrombomodulin]

For none of them is a government though #5 and #6 may each have been elected as one member of a government. ...after a duly-elected governmental body comes together

On what basis does it matter if a government is compelling men participate in a health insurance plan as opposed to any other person or group of people with the same plan and who have access to the same information? If it does matter, do you see any particular passages of scripture as informing us that such an act is righteous if done by a government, but wicked if anyone else does the same things?

Why is it necessary, in your view, that multiple elected officials participate in the decision making process by voting amongst themselves rather than just one official deciding? If a single individual had access to the all same technical information that each individual in a group of elected officials have had, would you approve of him alone imposing the plan?

Are you indicating that it always unethical for a non elected government, for example a monarchy, to impose such things as health insurance?

[Paidion]

Why is it necessary, in your view, that multiple elected officials participate in the decision making process by voting amongst themselves rather than just one official deciding? If a single individual had access to the all same technical information that each individual in a group of elected officials have had, would you approve of him alone imposing the plan?

Because a democratic government such as have been elected in the U.S. and Canada supposedly represents the will of the people who elected them. I know "supposedly" is the operative word here. For it seems that established democracies are not fully democratic.

Are you indicating that it always unethical for a non elected government, for example a monarchy, to impose such things as health insurance?

It seems to me that it is unethical for a non-elected government to impose anything since that which they impose frequently opposes the will of the people. Yet even an oligarchy (and somewhat less so a monarchy) would be better than anarchy, where anything goes without restraint. For where there are thieves, torturers, rapists, murderers, etc. there must be imposition, some authority to restrain their behaviour.

Even where every individual is a practising disciple of Christ, which might be the case in some Christian assemblies, it seems that leadership is necessary. Overseers were appointed in the first Christian assemblies. These overseers sometimes had to impose regulations or at least particular practices on the people. Paul commended the Corinthian Christians for maintaining the traditions which he had delivered to them. He mentioned in particular a woman's headcovering when praying or prophesying, and the tradition of the sharing the bread and wine in the communion (a word that means "sharing") or "eucharist" (thanksgiving) as it was later called. Paul also emphasized the importance of being under the law of Christ(1 Cor 9:21, Gal 6:2) and also commands (3rd person imperative) every individual to be subject to governing authorities:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. (Romans 13:1)

In our day, it seems we want to be fully in control of all we do with no external restrictions whatever. Anyone who says otherwise is labelled a "legalist". We don't want to be under any authority. We call this "freedom". But I wonder whether it is not rather bondage, bondage to our own self-serving desires.

[thrombomodulin]

I apologize that it has taken a while for me to write a reply on this thread. I've been traveling lately, and it has prevent me from obtaining enough time to think about and write a reply.

Because a democratic government such as have been elected in the U.S. and Canada supposedly represents the will of the people who elected them. I know "supposedly" is the operative word here. For it seems that established democracies are not fully democratic ... It seems to me that it is unethical for a non-elected government to impose anything since that which they impose frequently opposes the will of the people.

Would it be accurate for me understand your view as being only indirectly concerned with the type of government? I am inferencing that your primary concern is whether or not "the will of the people" is fulfilled. That is to say, would you affirm that if the "will of the people" were in agreement with an imposition made by a government, then that imposition is ethical even if it were imposed by an oligarchy or monarchy? Likewise, would you affirm that if elected officials of a democracy impose certain things against the "will of the people", then those impositions are always unethical even if they are done in a republic or democracy?

...would be better than anarchy, where anything goes without restraint. For where there are thieves, torturers, rapists, murderers, etc. there must be imposition, some authority to restrain their behaviour.

I have read the writings of several men who adhere to an anarchist position. They are most certainly not affirming that "anything goes without restraint". They are affirm that impositions need to exist. They affirm the existence of laws. The restraint on evil that they envision is a result of each individual exercising self defense against whomever carries out, or attempts to carry out, a criminal act against them. Of course, it should be expected that various groups of individuals will join together to create a mutual, common defense of themselves. Such a development is not seen, by the anarchists I have read, as being unethical.

Even where every individual is a practising disciple of Christ, which might be the case in some Christian assemblies, it seems that leadership is necessary. Overseers were appointed in the first Christian assemblies. These overseers sometimes had to impose regulations or at least particular practices on the people.

There is a great difference between the kind of impositions made by the church (if they can be called impositions at all), and the kind that are made by the State. Unlike the State, the church leadership does not deprive any person of their property, freedom, or life. Anyone who does not wish to abide by the commands of church leadership is free to leave unconditionally. Such a person will have lost the closeness of certain personal relationships they used to have, and they may not be welcome upon at the property belonging to some of the believers they used to know - but not more. Consequently, I don't see the church leadership and government officials as being in any way comparable in their roles. If you see it otherwise, please explain.