Is it Christian to let uninsured people die?

[TheJasonDR]

god hates socialism 

[bolshevikML]

People die anyway.

[rugby543211]

why say christian? instead couldn't you say the 'right' thing to do. i'm not a christian but I have morals and opinions too.

[Griffin519x]

No it is not the Christian thing to do, but it's not the government's and the tax payer's job to take care of everyone. That's why there are private organizations and church's that you can get assistance from in a time of need.

[wickedenchanter]

The audience at the GOP debates cheered at the prospect of letting the uninsured die, they cheered at the number of convicts executed in Texas, and without a trace of irony they will define themselves as "pro-life."

[ninuxy]

The Teanuts want the whole middle class die and the bottom become slaves. That's their goal.

[TheKingston1960]

setteling the ressession from when people made music had money but getting stolen from the fact is still remains, some one that made money and everybody has the money that they honestly made back in their pocket ,instead of some crook living off of someones misery isn't cool,doing right in settling this and i have the wisdom to just need the cooperation to get it done with all the bullshit stopping and them calling me a TA0018 incompetence is the pot calling the kettle black.

[rustybenelli]

Why not ask the question is it societies responsibility to provide cancer treatment to millions of americans who smoked two packs a day for thirty years. When does personal responsibility end and social welfare begin.

[kaysandesses]

@rustybenelli An even better question would be to use one that fits reality. Yours does not

[DarkRhiad]

Disclaimer: I'm only half joking :P

[DarkRhiad]

Of course it's not the christian thing to let those people die! Sheesh! The christian thing is to beat them with a stick until they accidentally die! At least that's what I see in terms of ideology coming from the church and uber religious people (christian or other such hate... i mean loving groups)

[just1again]

sorry @othername11 - I didn't realize that i was replying to the SAME person in my two comment. Thats why they are so redundant.

[BrianMChampion]

If a Christian ethic pervaded our society, this person would get treated; but he would have to sign all the documents saying he'd pay for his treatment. Then, when he couldn't actually pay, he'd just file for bankruptcy and get a fresh start. It's the American way!

[othername11]

Also, this has nothing to do with whether it is "christian." R. Paul's answer noted that he and his hospital would not turn people away. That is the distinction.... private charity (which people in the US, and conservatives more than liberals... yes there is a study on this, sponsor private charity more than any country in the developed world) which is voluntary and directed (and where christians would do their work) versus government programs that are coercisive, general and wasteful.

[TheTokkin]

@othername11 Government healthcare systems are generally much more efficient than private ones. This is why almost all of the developed world has implemented such a system . Coercion is irrelevant: all laws are coercive, even the ones that libertarians advocate.

[othername11]

This is highly misleading. The question in the debate is whether the government has an obligation to provide care for a person who CHOOSES not to purchase health insurance. If a person knowingly assumes a risk (by saving money they would use for insurance), and it occurs (even if extreme) then they should be free to face the consequence. They were free to make a choice of benefit now (saving $) versus risk (dying). If you want to live in a free society, that is the only correct answer.

[wmarcus1203]

There is a difference between government doing this and individuals giving care

[brainiacgames]

If you mandate insurance via penalty, and someone opts to pay the penalty rather than pay for insurance, and they get sick ... does Obamacare just let them die? Is that 'Christian'? If so, isn't Obamacare just another heartless fascist policy? If not, what's the point of the penalty?

[othername11]

@brainiacgames Well said. The decision to pay the penalty is a decision to forego the coverage. The same issue exists as to whether someone wants to pick up insurance in the first place.

[HelplessnessBlues]

@brainiacgames No, the fee is designed to provide a funding mechanism to pay for indigent care that was an unfunded service that government had to foot the bill for.

[brainiacgames]

@HelplessnessBlues No, the penalty is designed to force people to buy insurance. And it is not enough to fund 'indigent care'. It doesn't even come close.

[burlyrdc]

And I might add; ask this question to a christian student of Mises or Hayek. Is Ben Bernanke a christian....and he is destroying the American savings accounts. Is the head of the American Medical Association (Doctor Labor Union) a christian as he pushes the wages of doctors artificially higher....gimme a break and grow up.

[burlyrdc]

Ron Paul answered the question perfectly. The medical system is bloated and 50 years ago the christian churches would have provided care for him. But Ron Paul recommended that he carry an insurance policy so that he is covered. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not the guarantee. Millions made it here without the government guarantee which is only stealing from those who have pursued happiness. Much more money would be in the charitable giving if the govt didn't take so much.

[TheTokkin]

@burlyrdc It is an immoral and wasteful policy to let 30 year olds die. It is also immoral to leave the care of any person on the whims of voluntarism.

[othername11]

@TheTokkin Why is that the case? Perhaps we should ban high risk sports then? 30 year olds cannot make decisions to assume risk? Well, let's ban rock climbing, car racing, a whole host of activities since voluntarism cannot be entrusted to 30 year olds.

You are on a very, very slippery slope, my friend.....

[TheTokkin]

@othername11 No. Generally, high risk sports promote exercise and healthy lifestyles among its athletes: and sport events are economically sound activity, all which certainly is worth whatever small risks such sports carry. It is incredibly wasteful to let 30 year olds die because of personal mistake such as the failure to purchase health insurance. It is not a sound policy to let people suffer such dire consequences from a personal error, even if you believe in personal responsibility.

[othername11]

@TheTokkin You are rather obtuse, aren't you? The point is assumption of risk. I can decide to do rock climbing, which could lead to my death. I can decide to save a few buck now instead paying for health insurance which could also lead to my death. If someone chooses not to buy insurance, its not a personal error.... its a CHOICE. The points you bring up are interesting facts to consider when making a choice, but it is still a choice.

[just1again]

@othername11 Its NOT always a choice to buy health insurance or not. I know plenty of working people who live VERY modestly- no car,small apt, never go out and spend money, nd still have trouble just paying their rent and utilities. They have NO money for insurance, yet they fall above the cut-off for medicaid. they are the working poor, and this country if overflowing with them. FACE REALITY!

[kaysandesses]

@othername11 Well, you seem to be well-versed on the subject so you should be able to answer this question: What percentage of uninsured in the U.S. can afford to purchase health insurance but don't?

[othername11]

Also, consder that if govt provides back-stops for those who make poor choices, you promote others to make the same bad choices as the downsides no longer have risk (which is what prevents people from making poor choices... they could end up being harmed). Also, if government mandates choices, then society is no longer free, you mey prevent some from facing bad consequences, but you also prevent those that make good choices from being able to benefit (or allow others to benefit) from them.

[just1again]

@othername11 THE ONLY WAY HEALTH INS> IS A CHOICE IS IF ITS AFFORDABLE EVEN FOR THE WORKING POOR. It is NOT at all affordable. Unless the choice you suggest is whether to pay for Health insurance, or rent, or the electric bill, or even food. People are dying because they are poor, but still about the cutoff for medicaid. Its appalling that we don't have affordable public health insurance as a choice for ALL.

[Rexcetera]

I wish people would stop referring to the people at Liberty University as students. They're not students, they're kids learning all about propaganda, intolerance, and cruelty.

[Nigomsa]

@Rexcetera Apparently they aren't buying in to at least that part of what they're teaching though.