The prophetic standard of living--a model for politics?

[_moksha]

I just thought I might gain some leverage with other LDS by bringing up a prophetic standard of living. In the end, I suppose that this was foolish of me. I was just hoping it might help underscore that the prophet feels it's important enough for himself, so perhaps we should make it available to all (even if not completely free, at least affordable).

Health care for all really should be the great religious issue right now. What greater opportunity is there than this to put our religious principles into practice?

[_Coggins7]

But this is the true Christian position, to help others. The sick need healing. To deny health care access would be to deny help. I would assume based on the true Christian spirit, that Thomas Monson would embrace health care for all.

What does "health care access" have to do with Christian charity, as understood in the New Testament? The "Christian position" you mention relates only to individuals and their response to the suffering of other individuals, and is inherently non-political.

[_Coggins7]

It's a hard question for me. In general I prefer to keep the government out of my life. However, I find that healthcare doesn't quite work when left to the free market.

Have you actually studied the economic history of health care in this and other countries Asbestos? The system was working quite well here until the rise of Medicare, Medicaid, and the third party payer system that stokes the entitlement mentality of the general population. Medical price inflation began to rise exponentially precisely in the mid-sixties with the government interventions of the Great Society, distorting markets, corrupting incentives, and isolating the public from the true cost of their medical care.
Indeed, as in most other areas of economic life, what the medical industry and its consumers need is a heavy dose of free market capitalism with all of its natural correctives, including competition and dynamic innovation, which will bring price down and insure that quality of service stays high.

Socialized medicine has turned into a nightmare of ever decreasing quality and the rationing of services wherever its been tried, including Canada, the U.K., and Western Europe.

While it may be the case that the majority of people are un(der)insured due to their own choice (something I am okay with because I believe in agency), it bothers me quite a bit that some people fairly close to me cannot buy private health care insurance for themselves or their children because of pre-existing conditions. At the very least I would propose that the government provide affordable healthcare insurance for those in that category.

In that case Asbestos, and I agree with you here, because my wife is uninsurable as well, the problem is not to destroy the quality and availability of health care by nationalizing it under a single payer system, but to get the bloody general price of health care down by getting government out of it and reestablishing a free, rationally regulated, competitive market within the medical industry. It works everywhere else, and it will work in the health care sector, driven by the market for its services and not by populist demagoguery and political vote buying schemes.

[_Coggins7]

Thomas Monson and corporate executives have nothing to do with anything.

*Because sometimes things just speak for themselves*

Quite true. I just thought I might gain some leverage with other LDS by bringing up a prophetic standard of living. In the end, I suppose that this was foolish of me. I was just hoping it might help underscore that the prophet feels it's important enough for himself, so perhaps we should make it available to all (even if not completely free, at least affordable).

Through the LDS welfare system, or worse, local callings?

"Brother Jones, we would like to extend a calling for you to accept, that being the calling of stake medical Doctor. Do you accept?"

LOL

by the way, with Tommy's type II Diabetes, where is the healing magic of the priesthood powers?

Most obese folks who have type II Diabetes is due to their slothful lifestyle.

So much for the magic of following the WoW, oh wait, carbohydrates and being obese were not included. G****** God! Was he drinking when he gave the WoW to Joe?

[Mod note: Edited swearing]

We await some glimmer of substance from you two at some future time.

I chomp the bit...

[_Coggins7]

Health care for all really should be the great religious issue right now. What greater opportunity is there than this to put our religious principles into practice?

Its a religious issue Mok? Now, who then would you like to address the health care issue, the individual as an act of Charity in the name of religious conviction, or Ceasar? And if Ceasar, what does this portend for the very concept of "charity"?


Question: Do you have a right to come into my house and steal money from my drawer to pay for your health care?

If the answer is "no", then is it acceptable for you to empower the state to do that in your name and in your stead through taxation? In other words, Is it acceptable for the state to do legally for you what, were you to do yourself, would be a criminal act?

[_asbestosman]

Question: Do you have a right to come into my house and steal money from my drawer to pay for your health care?

If the answer is "no", then is it acceptable for you to empower the state to do that in your name and in your stead through taxation? In other words, Is it acceptable for the state to do legally for you what, were you to do yourself, would be a criminal act?

Do you have the right to come into my house and steal money from my drawer to pay for your children to go to school? Yet the government does it.
Do you have the right to come into my house and steal money from my drawer to pay for the defendant's lawyer? Yet, the government will do it.
Do you have the right to come into my house and steal money from my drawer to pay for fireworks for the 4th of July? Yet, the government does it.

[_asbestosman]

In that case Asbestos, and I agree with you here, because my wife is uninsurable as well, the problem is not to destroy the quality and availability of health care by nationalizing it under a single payer system, but to get the bloody general price of health care down by getting government out of it and reestablishing a free, rationally regulated, competitive market within the medical industry. It works everywhere else, and it will work in the health care sector, driven by the market for its services and not by populist demagoguery and political vote buying schemes.

The problem is--much faith as I have in the invisible hand--I think the free market will always run into a few hiccups. Monopolies will occasionally happen. Another problem with free markets is the tragedy of the commons (overgrazing, pollution, etc.). I think another problem is that of insurance--companies simply won't want to ensure high-risk customers at an affordable rate. I don't think it's fair to make them ensure high cost customers, but I don't think it's fair that people are denied coverage because of it.

I think health care costs have recently skyrocketed for a number of reasons. Government meddling may be part of it, but I think another problem is that liability has increased with costly lawsuits for healthcare providers, doctors, etc. Another part of it may be that we are able to do more, but it costs a lot to do. In any case I don't see how the uninsurable will ever be insurable without something drastic changing. I don't see how private insurance companies are ever going to ensure high-risk patients unless it is done as with large companies and huge policies for a substantial number of employees and dependants.

[_Coggins7]

Do you have the right to come into my house and steal money from my drawer to pay for your children to go to school? Yet the government does it.
Do you have the right to come into my house and steal money from my drawer to pay for the defendant's lawyer? Yet, the government will do it.
Do you have the right to come into my house and steal money from my drawer to pay for fireworks for the 4th of July? Yet, the government does it.

Except for the second example, which I would probably want to preserve, and the third, which is trivial and frivolous, what you mention here is just a potential argument for government not doing those things. I do not believe, for the record, in the government taxing people who have no children in public school to pay for the schooling of the children of those who do.

The Constitution lists a very limited and clear set of functions the state is to perform for the body politic, understood as things which would be very difficult or impossible for private individuals to do for themselves. Health care is not among them, nor is the schooling of children for that matter.

The question I asked, drawn from Bastiat, is that when government does does something legally that for the individual, would be a crime, one is looking at a government that is beyond its constitutional and moral bounds. Government engages in organized defense, but nothing prevents an individual from defending himself when the government cannot intervene in a timely or substantive manner. It is not a crime to defend myself, nor, under conceivable circumstances, would it be a crime to engage in organized self defense if the state was in disposed. Confiscating your property and transferring it to myself for my own use without your consent would almost always be a crime, regardless of circumstance (one could come up with extreme circumstances. I could run to your house and take your hose if my house was on fire. But this would always imply, especially in a Christian context, the returning of the hose, or the replacement of it if it was destroyed during use).

The point is that taking money by force from those to whom it belongs, and giving to those to whom it does not belong, for the purpose of the extension of government "benefits" to the populace for the purpose of creating a society in which everybody lives at the expense of everyone else through the mediation of the state is not legitimate taxation for legitimate purposes, but simply legal plunder; that is, plunder that would be illegal for you to engage in as an individual, but becomes legal for the state simply because the state says it is.

[Analytics]

I do not believe, for the record, in the government taxing people who have no children in public school to pay for the schooling of the children of those who do.

I do, because I believe it is an investment which pays for itself in a number of ways, one of them being in helping to (hopefully) cut down on the number of delinquent children in juvinile prison.

The Constitution lists a very limited and clear set of functions the state is to perform for the body politic, understood as things which would be very difficult or impossible for private individuals to do for themselves. Health care is not among them, nor is the schooling of children for that matter.

Except that for many people it is difficult or impossible to provide health care or education for themselves or their children.

The point is that taking money by force from those to whom it belongs, and giving to those to whom it does not belong, for the purpose of the extension of government "benefits" to the populace for the purpose of creating a society in which everybody lives at the expense of everyone else through the mediation of the state is not legitimate taxation for legitimate purposes, but simply legal plunder; that is, plunder that would be illegal for you to engage in as an individual, but becomes legal for the state simply because the state says it is.

I dislike the government paying for expenses because we run into the other side of the problem with the law of the commons. If I don't feel the full impact of my choices, I'm less likely to choose wisely and conserve. That said, I think it's interesting that polygamy can be legal or illegal just because the government says so. Same with marijuana, alcohol, tabacco, marriage, etc.

[_moksha]

Health care for all really should be the great religious issue right now. What greater opportunity is there than this to put our religious principles into practice?

Its a religious issue Mok? Now, who then would you like to address the health care issue, the individual as an act of Charity in the name of religious conviction, or Caesar? And if Caesar, what does this portend for the very concept of "charity"?

Rather than an individual act of charity in the name of religious conviction, it would be a collective act of charity that would need to be given under the administrative guidance of the government. To the second part of the question, I think it portends both hope for charity and its efficient administration as well.