CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I think Christian socialism is theologically justified, and I can argue that if anyone wants, but asking this about "God" in general is a stupid question.
I agree that the question is silly and no one really knows. (By the way, there are more civil ways of expressing your dissatisfaction with a question.) The thrust of the question is to start questioning why would social conservatives or values voters oppose an issue like universal health care and favor an issue like abortion.
Because Universal Health Care is specifically a theoretical approach to providing health care and has its main implications in economics. Abortion is specifically a theological issue and has its main implication is in metaphysics and the existence of the soul. Social Conservatism just doesn't really say anything on Universal Health Care and why should it? Now, I said that I believed Christian Marxist Socialism is a logical conclusion of a careful reading of the bible. The difference is that this is a much more contentious subject and Christian Socialism was never, on the whole, a doctrine adopted by the church nor one that is ever explicitly expressed in the canonical scripture.
Well, UHC has been cast as merely a policy. Abortion too is a policy, but it has theological aspects. UHC is not principally an economic issue - it's a moral one. UHC too could win moral if not theological appeal if it were properly spinned. Helping 47 million gain access to better health certainly isn't an evil thing. And how isn't caring for the health of others not too a matter of one's soul and existence?
True, social conservatives say little now about UHC. They should certainly say something about UHC, if they are opposed to it or willing to vote against it. Shouldn't one's belief in God's omnibenevolence lead a social conservative to believe that UHC would be a policy that would fit within their beliefs? Setting aside taxes (and that's admittedly a tall order), why is there a knee jerk reaction amongst Republicans against UHC? More broadly, if the GOP is truly the party of social values, why do they consistently pledge to cut social programs?
Taxes suck. I get it. But taxing the rich wouldn't offset their lifestyles. They will still have more than everyone else. And if the preponderant financial burden is not on the middle and lower classes, then taxes don't really affect them. Having access to affordable health care would.
Every policy decision has moral implications, but favouring socialism over market-based care coverage is an economic question in response to a moral obligation: which system delivers the best health care with the least negative repercussions to the most people. Universal health care delivers to everyone, but compromises quality and technological innovation, as well as takes away certain liberties. Free Market health care delivers health care to those who want it with low costs and high quality with no violation of liberty. (The current system is not free market). This is why we have market socialists who want absolute equality through the market.
So you see it's much more complicated than "it's right to give people health care," which to me sounds like the road to hell being paved with good intentions. Conservatives cut public spending and welfare programs because they contend they do more harm than good, and that there are practical and ethical alternatives. Welfare is a good example. Welfare in my country Canada is essentially a racist policy. It's been keeping stagnant our poorest population, the natives. Similar things happened in the US with the black communities. It wasn't until Welfare Reform (a cut in social spending) that things got better. There was lots of opposition by liberals, but now they virtually all agree that welfare reform was one of the most successful policies to eliminate poverty ever in the US.
This is igniting a different debate, though. Conservatives, like liberals, want the best for people in society. They just have different theoretical approaches to it. The main point rests. There is no explicit theological commitment to socialist, feudal, free-market, Keynesian, or any other modern idea, unlike the soul which is a central tenet.
This is because they believe that God gave us free will for a reason. It's one thing to stop murder and rape from occuring, but it's another thing to start forcing others to give money to others. Christians often believe in charity, where the individual gives to those less fortunate, and Christians often believe that those who wish to be saved have to work for it (as in proving their worthiness to God). Not forcing some to be nice to others.
To the idea of free will. That's beyond the scope to the question. The question asks what would God do. Not want men freely choose to do.
Second, everyone agrees that murder and tax extorsion are different things. But they aren't unrelated in some respects. We are perfectly happy taxing citizens to fund the war in Iraq (a war that even the staunchest supporters must admit now was an unwise war - and was totally unrelated to the war on terror). Yet no one cries uncle. Make no mistake: these tax dollars in part are meant to kill Iraqis.
What I don't understand is why are people content with money that goes towards killing and not with money that goes towards healing. if everyone in the world were given the basic necessities in life such as good health, can you imagine how much more peaceful the world would be?
Third, it is hard to believe that 47 million Americans are all lazy and not willing to work. Most of these people are looking for jobs or have jobs and are struggling to pay the rent and dinner. Not everyone has the same opportunities as you and me. It is a matter of chance where we land. For anti-abortion advocates who value life so much, why wouldn't they value lives that already exist?
Last, how doesn't the Bible or any religion not force it's followers in some way? The 10 commandments seem pretty clear and forceful. Religion at the very least nudges people towards a direction. It seems hard to argue that any religion wouldn't advocate helping others if it doesn't really do any harm to you.
helping the poor is never stated that you must force everyone else to do it.
for some reason, people feel funding the military is more important than helping the poor. to be honest, i much rather give money to military technology than to a feed the homeless drive.
then again, i'm not religious at all, and don't care.
Well this arguement will disappear in about two days since all my aetheist comments get down voted to oblivion. But yes, obviously God would want Universal Health Care. The idea of an all powerful and all good being allowing people to suffer or even not wanting all people to do everything in their power to cure all the sick, (not just the ones who can afford it) is incomprehensible and obvoiusly is another of the many many reasons there is... tada! no such thing as god.
So yeah, but it's a silly arguement to start with.
I believe that God means for us to help others. How we do it is up to us. God expects us to provide for the needy. This does not include helping those who won't work and support themselves. My example is from Deuteronomy 24:19-22.
19 When you are harvesting in your field and you overlook a sheaf, do not go back to get it. Leave it for the alien, the fatherless and the widow, so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. 20 When you beat the olives from your trees, do not go over the branches a second time. Leave what remains for the alien, the fatherless and the widow. 21 When you harvest the grapes in your vineyard, do not go over the vines again. Leave what remains for the alien, the fatherless and the widow. 22 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt. That is why I command you to do this.
To the claim that God doesn't help "those who won't work and support themselves." Are you saying that 47 million Americans aren't working and trying to support themselves? The knee-jerk response to any social welfare program, is that the people are lazy and not hard working.
I concede that there are those who are lazy, good-for-nothing people out there. But I wouldn't say that there are 47 million of them. These are people with jobs and are struggling to pay the rent and put dinner on the table. The fact that no one admits or sees is that not everyone has the same opportunities as others. It's a matter of chance where we land. Should they be punished for happenstance?
Last, the question asked not what we would want. It is what would God (or Jesus or Allah or whatever deity most people believe in) do?
First of all, that 47 million number is completely bunk. here's why...
- 7 million are illegal immigrants.
- 9 million are on Medicaid
- 3.5 million are already eligible for government programs
- Approximately 20 million have, or live, in families with incomes greater than twice the federal poverty level, or $41,300 for a family of four.
That's 39.5 million people who shouldn't be eligible for medical insurance (they are illegal immigrants), who are already on government medical, who have no clue that they could be on government medical, or who choose to not accept the medical plans their employer provides.
I admit - of those 20 million there are people who don't have it because their employer doesn't offer medical insurance or the premiums are retarded. In this case, the government simply needs to open up competition and force employers to offer medical insurance.
In the end - after accounting for these numbers, you find that only 7 million or so have no coverage - much lower than the 47 million people talk about.
Does god want illegal immigrants - who often time contribute nothing to our tax base - to be covered by people who responsibly got citizenship and work legally here? My guess is no.
Does god want people who are on medicaid or could be on government assistance, to be covered by some arbitrary universal plan that would act as a redundancy only? Probably not.
Also, while some people are dealt with crappy situations, people make their own luck. People are presented opportunities all the time. They just choose to not accept them for psychological reasons (low self-esteem, self-worth, etc...).
I haven't seen those figures. Could you cite them?
To the 7 million figure. It is doubtful that that is included in the 47 million, but I'd like to see evidence.
Those 9 million on Medicare don't count in that figure (do they?) this push towards universalizing health care is for those just above the bottom and in the middle.
As for the 20 million would earn twice as much as the poverty line. This may be true. But does that figure mean that those families can afford adequate health insurance?
Next, we have the most competitive insurance system in the world. More competition wouldn't necessarily lead to lower prices. And if you say that the government needs to force employers to offer medical insurance, aren't you just agreeing with the idea that people should have coverage?
As for immigrants. True they don't contribute taxes, but they add money to the system in another way. Their cheap labor save companies money and in turn save consumers money with cheaper goods. If all of our goods were produced domestically only by citizens, we would be paying more for products. And if you think that God only wants Americans to have health care and not immigrants, than that is either a racist or nationalist God. Shouldn't He love all His people?
As for crappy situtions, true some people don't seize all of the opportunities that are presented to them. But perhaps you think that the will can triumph all. It can do a lot, but not everything. And even if they make the wrong choices, wouldn't God exercise forgiveness and present them with more opportunities?
The Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit group often quoted in news reports, puts the number of uninsured Americans who do not qualify for current government programs and make less than $50,000 a year between 8.2 million and 13.9 million, far less than the mantra of 40 to 50 million.
Next, more competition typically leads to better value or lower prices. We also need to work on better disclosure, so that consumers can actually comparison shop. The way healthcare is now, this is much harder to do.
I love what immigrants do for this country. But if they want to be covered by our healthcare, they should pay in for it. If they are illegal and can't pay in, then they shouldn't have the privilege that US citizens have. Why is that unfair?
And some people are offered way too many opportunities that they continue to pass up. Either way, all i'm saying is that most people put themselves in the situation they're in.
Last but not least, I believe the government should force employers to ATLEAST offer some kind of coverage. But I don't believe in government run healthcare ala France, England, Canada, etc...
Your first source is obviously biased. Of course the Business and Media Institute (Advancing the Culture of Free Enterprise in America) would come up with figures that would attack the 47 million figure. The article doesn't clearly present how their numbers are arrived at. But fine, we can assume that ther are significant cases where people could be insured either because they can afford it or because they qualify in some way. But you'd have to admit that 8.2 to 13.9 million is a sizable figure (one that I'm not ready to admit - but will allow for the sake of argument). And if you say that the other half can get insurance than fine, that just means that the push towards univerasalizing isn't as a taxing as initially thought. Finding a way to insure the rest shouldn't then be as heavy a burden as previously thought.
So, maybe it's only your god who wants universal health care. But that brings up the question, if he wanted us to have it so bad, why don't we already have it? Better yet, why didn't he just make us in a way where we wouldn't need health care at all?
If there was a god, they'd probably want everyone to have free health care. But in reality, the god wouldn't want someone to wait 3 months for an appointment to get a what seems to be a sign of cancer checked out. By the time they're done waiting to finally see a doctor, they'll be dead. Look at Canada's joke of a health care system.
Universal health care won't work. It sounds great but it just won't work.
It works. What do you think is happening in the EU and Japan? Proof that it works. True they are in a period of retrenchment, but no one wants to get rid of it. And these countries, after the United States are among the most vibrant economies in the world. It's not socialism: it's a mixed market system.
Just look at the tax base of most of the EU and tell me they aren't socialist. I mean, christ, in France its nearly IMPOSSIBLE to get fired, thanks to the social safety net.
Also, the Euro experiences growth rates about 1% under the US. They don't grow as fast as we do here. And it's mainly due to their tax system.
Just look at how taxes are done in the UK and tell me there's some semblance of spending control or logic. A big part of that has to do with their spending on medical care for the country.
Listen, this is what's going to happen (you can quote me on it) as governments get less revenue and medical care costs move higher (thanks to an aging population and a slowdown in population growth) the government will have to either tax more or eliminate benefits.
This is going to seriously change how medical care is taken care of in European and Japanese nations.
The tax base indeed, but not the means of production. There are socialist elements - but the economy is undoubtedly capitalist. The EU is a massive effort to expand the European Market. No one's saying topple the capitalist system. It has already won. Just because it has won, doesn't mean that it couldn't survive reform that would help its participants.
Do you seriously think that a differential of 1% is a significant figure? We are number one in the world economically. But other nations take a relatively close second. And they do so by making sure that all of their people are taken care of. Imagine if your annual health bill were only 1% of your income. Would you really take umbrage at this?
I am listening and I don't agree with what you're saying. Medical care costs will move higher, but decline after the baby boom generation and level off since we have a 2.1% replacement rate. Most importantly these people are already covered under the current system! This critique has only an oblique relationship to universalizing health care. Regardless, we can still expand the system in the face of rising costs as well. We could keep the system skeletal and cover the basics, and cut spending on more expensive, riskier procedures. Further, incorporating more people into the system would lower costs by lowering risks and increasing the number of contributors.
Indeed, if cuts in benefis are not possible, then taxes will have to go up. But here's the thing. The brunt of the tax burden wouldn't (or shouldn't) be on middle and lower classes: it would be on those who can bare - at no relative inconvenience - the costs.
Companies and economies in Europe and Japan have managed to become leaders in the world - they face burdens yes, but no one wants to get rid of universal coverage.
You make a logical argument challenging God's existence. That said, assuming His existence and that He is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, what is your answer?
The argument is (a modified version of) an Epicureus quote.
And he already answered your question. God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, because those qualities are not consistent with His actions.
Personal God like Jesus and Iejova? Jesus said that we shall help ourselves, also said that we should help the poor... but, also said it's still our choice...
The question was not about our choice, it is about His. Also, could you explain why a deist God would oppose universal health care? Would a deist God remain neutral in all human affairs? So on issues such as abortion, God would be indifferent?
I think god would want Universal Health Care that wasn't riddled with inefficiencies, while still paying doctors what they deserve for taking 12 years of their life to help others.
I believe god would want Universal Health Care that wasn't paid for by taking out 25% (or more) of everyones hard earned paychecks.
So God wants a health care system with no inefficiencies, ie. a perfect health care system, yet he created a world and man in his own image with all the imperfections we posses including NEEDING health care? Ouch, my head hurts. What form do I fill out to get an aspirin?
If he wanted us to have health care, we would have been born with it. By that same logic, If he wanted us to believe in him/her/it we would have been born with bibles/korans/etc...
