SteveF wrote: My intentions were to demonstrate that “distribution of wealth” is a principal found in God’s law. Should we not be encouraged when a society sees merit in a Godly principle?
The principle of "distribution of wealth" is too terse a description of a principle for me to discern whether or not I agree with it. I would agree that God honors the individual who gives his own money. However, it is not honoring to God to steal someone else's wealth in order to give their wealth to the poor. Government programs are based upon the idea of forcing one's neighbor to give. Since there is no law preventing individuals from giving out of their own wealth, a legal requirement to give is of no use other than forcing someone to give who is not otherwise willing to do so. Thus, I do see merit where individuals give their own money voluntarily. I do not, however, see merit where people give (or rather expropriate) money that belongs to other people.
SteveF wrote: Yes that’s my point. The taxes were used for some things Christians would disagree with, yet they were instructed to pay them.
Steve Gregg well pointed out that the issue at hand is what God has authorized Caesar to do; rather than what God requires citizens to do. My present understanding is that Caesar is only authorized to do that which God has communicated that he has authority to do.
A friend of mine recently pointed out that if Caesar has greater authority than what God has communicated, then the problem of conflicting jurisdicition arises. (For example, if both Caesar and parents have authority over the instruction and education of a parent's child). The implication of conflicting jurisdictions impugns God's character as being disorderly, and perhaps leads to fighting and struggling as a means of resolving conflict.
SteveF wrote: your concerns have never materialized and there’s no reason to think they will...
Not being a Canadian citizen, I must say I do not have much familiarity with the system. I am glad your experience has been good, and hopefully my concerns will not come to pass in your system. There are, however, others who have a contrary opinion about the quality of Canadian health care (
Fraser TV,
Antedotal Example #1,
Antedotal Example #2)
Since the recent financial crisis I have been making an effort to study economics. My concern about "death panels" is in large part based upon my understanding of the laws of economics. It is crucial to convey the role that prices serve in a market, for prices are the means by which individuals communicate to each other knowledge of the scarcity of real resources. Prices on an unhampered market will fluctuate to match the desires of sellers with the desires of buyers. Attempts by government to interfere with the unhampered market by establishing prices controls result in consequences contrary to the intent of government. Laws decreasing prices result intended to make goods more readily available to buyers results in shortages as fewer sellers are willing to part with their goods and services. Laws increasing prices in order to help sellers (e.g. farmers) end up causing surpluses and depriving other areas of the economy from much needed resources. The effect of government reducing the price of health care service will result in a shortage of those willing to supply health care services, and an increase in the number of people seeking to purchase such services.
I came across
this site in an internet search about Canadian health care. I found it very interesting to read because the problems cited here relate so well to this discussion, and the laws of economics about which I have been learning. Note the following from this link:
- Consumers are voluntarily patronizing for profit clinics and paying money for the services they receive. These customers show by their actions that the public system is an inferior option for the purpose of meeting their needs.
These citizens would not be better off under a mandatory system which would prohibit them from paying more to get these services.
- "private clinics ... enticing doctors to either leave the public system entirely, or provide services in both the public and private sectors.". The shortage of public system doctors is a result of the government intervention of reducing the wages (the price) of doctors below their market value. These doctors would not be better off under a mandatory system which would prohibit them from being paid more to their services.
The point is both patients and doctors are better off when they are free to exchange with each other. When the government prohibits voluntary exchanges by a mandatory system, it is detrimental to both patients and doctors. For this reason, I don't agree with the statement "It’s the mandatory involvement that makes the system work and people don't want it changed."
That’s why our health care costs are half (per person) of the U.S’s
Can you please cite the source for this?
I think I’d be more concerned under a private insurance system where the company exists solely to earn a profit. They would seemingly have a much stronger motivation to force vaccines and implement the two tier system you’re suggesting.
On the contrary, we should be much less concerned here: For a government can fund its "company" regardless of the opinion of its customers. The only way for a private company to earn a profit is by providing a service which customers see as valuable. No health insurance company is in a position to force a vaccine on a person, although a company of course can charge a differential price or decline coverage. We need not, however, have any concern that all health insurance companies would decline coverage, for in an unhampered market economy entrepreneurs seek profit, and profit is readily available to any health insurance company dissenting from the rest.
This brings me to my last point (it is getting late, and I can write only a little more). Profit serves an important function in the economy. For profit is a signal to entrepreneurs that consumers have need of a certain product or service. When a certain sector of the economy is profitable, then entrepreneurs will seek to invest resources in that sector for selfish reasons. This is beneficial to consumers and entrepreneurs. Government intervention to take profit out of health care leads entrepreneurs to invest scarce non-specific resources to other more profitable uses, which is ultimately detrimental, not beneficial, to consumers of health care.
