Talk:Universal Health Care

"Although, further reading of Luke suggests that Jesus believed that those without great means, are as righteous (or more) in his eyes as those to whom wealth is abundant.

And [Jesus] looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury. And He saw a certain poor widow putting in two small copper coins. And He said, "Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all of them; for they all out of their surplus put into the offering; but she out of her poverty put in all that she had to live on." (NAS, Luke 21:1-4)"

The author of this line, and his attempted inclusion of it within this article, failed to take note of the fact that such contribution is voluntary in nature, and from the heart. Proponents of universal health care are the opposite; that is, they seek to take such funding from people by force, and such individuals use Bible passages out of context to support their views. That is called theft, and it is just plain wrong. Karajou 16:43, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

If the people, poor and rich alike, choose to vote to provide a service out of their portion of taxes, so be it: It is not theft. America is based on the principles of democracy, wherein members of a society have a right to exercise their beliefs, and in whereas a plurality of members agree to adopt new policies, those policies become the law governing all. To suggest that the rules of democracy are equivalent to forced acceptance is ridiculous. To purport that the voting process is involuntary, and against God, is to say that God himself is against democracy. I sincerely doubt that God is against democracy (It is "one nation under God", is it not?).

Per your statement that I am using Bible passages out of context to support "their" views... I think you have misjudged my intentions. I am not seeking to support the views of the liberal left, nor do I particularly seek to support the views of the conservative right. I am but a humble man, who is meerly pointing out the gaps in your logic. The seething toxicity of your words and reactions (removing honest attempts at debate) donotes a deeply held hatred of your fellow man, and I fear that it has blinded you from the true wisdom of Jesus. Lest you forget, that Jesus himself preached to poor and dejected souls, we should not cast disparaging remarks against those not fortunate to have the benefits of wealth.

Unfortunately, I suspect that my words shall go unheeded, and that you will revert my contributions yet again. Sadly, I will only have the legacy of the wiki history feature to mark my attempts at tempering your misgivings. I can only hope that God has a T1.

LambOfMichael

I agree with you, LambOfMichael, and disagree with Karajou, on the point that taxation is not "theft", and the words "by force" are inappropriate (by compulsion would have been better).

However, this debate is not really over the whether taxation is theft or not, but over whether or not the government should be providing universal health care from taxpayer's compulsorily-acquired money. On that point, I agree with Karajou that the Bible is not talking about government support for the poor, but individual support for the poor. So his reversions were justified on those grounds.

Philip J. Rayment 20:39, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

Canada

I don't like controversy or controversial articles, but I saw this in RC and I just couldn't let this go. Canada's health care system isn't quite that simplistic. The situation is that Canadian citizens cannot jump the queue on health care. For-pay services exist (and are regularly used by non-citizens, such as myself), and are available to citizens (who regularly purcase supplementary insurance), but service providers must charge a fixed rate and handle patients in a specifically regulated order.

That said, I probably won't write a section on universal health care in Canada for this article, as it's going to be a magnet for controversy. Besides the American controversy, it was a major issue in the last Canadian national election, and when the Conservative coalition inevitably falls apart, it's going to be an issue in the next one. I just wanted to fix that glib inaccuracy. AManInBlack 12:23, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Don't worry about it, the guy who wrote it was a vandal. I've reverted every contribution he's made to CP so far... Jazzman831 12:38, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Heh, okay. AManInBlack 12:44, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Points of view

As to whether UHC is biblical, or whether it works out as well in totalitarian countries as in the free West, we need to present a balanced view.

It would help if we got some practice expressing both sides. Try contributing to Debate:Is universal health care better than market-based medicine? first. --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:02, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Substandard

The article was almost pure opinion and POV. Better to have nothing than something this poorly written.

Someone, please start over with a good definition of what UHC is - or is supposed to be.

For example, how is it different from socialized medicine or free health insurance?

Is it an ideal, or a government mandate?

Who wants it, and why?

Does it describe a law or a situation? Does it entail a system, or does it refer to a hoped-for reality?

Perhaps it would be easier to describe health care in various countries we are all familiar with, first. Start with the family doctor, or the local hospital. Talk about health insurance and HMOs provided by local employers. Add to that Medicaid and Medicare, or their counterparts overseas.

Then write some articles about places where people are too poor to get decent medical care.

Only then can we really write adequately about the partisan politics of "health". --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:14, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

I can start working on it. I haven't had a good research project since summer started. And I won't be taking any poli sci courses next semester so it might be my last for a while :(

It would have been nice if you had done the normal procedure, though, and protected it instead of completely removing it. At least we can see what used to be there; I certainly didn't think it was opinionated before, and now I can't re-read it to make sure! Jazzman831 14:20, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

After you start the new version, I will un-delete the old version and put it somewhere where you can see it. Please leave me a note on my talk page when your first draft is ready for me to look at. --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:50, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

So... is that old version coming any time soon? Jazzman831 21:18, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

By the magic of Google...[1]

Thanks Jalepeno! I completely forgot about cache searching. Hrm and now that I see the article I see that I was right; it was bad, but in no way delete-worthy. Jazzman831 00:33, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

"Single-payer health care is a system in which one entity pays for the health care of the entire population. This entity is traditionally the federal government, and the system is paid for through taxes. Canada, Cuba and North Korea are the only 3 countries using this system." The above is a quote from the article. What about the countries of Europe, Latin America, Africa and Asia that have single-payer health care systems?Panini 23:02, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

which one?Jaques 14:31, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

France, Germany, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, et al. in Europe. China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Australia in Asia. Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay in Latin America. [User:Panini|Panini]] 10:57, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

all of those countries have multi-payer health-care system, except China, which has abolished universal health care since the death Mao (China is right now communism in name only). Jaques 16:10, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Explain to me the difference between single-payer health care and health care supplied by the federal government for free and is supported by taxation of the people, such as the system in the United Kingdom, France, Japan, Argentina and many other countries.Panini 11:23, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

I sould assume that all of those countries allow you to buy private insurance to supliment or replace their government insurance, which is the definition of multi-payer insurance. (I learned a lot about insurance when researching this article :) Jazzman831 21:58, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Then Canada does not belong in that category as you can buy health insurance to supplement government insurance.. Carpet88 11:27, 1 August 2007 (EDT)