4 ms·

Apparently they're based on the bible quote: "Bear one another’s burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ.” Which sounds to me like a good justification for

Apparently they're based on the bible quote: "Bear one another’s burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ.” Which sounds to me like a good justification for nationwide healthcare like we have in Canada. Except its done in a Christianwide way instead of nationwide. I find that interesting, since the argument against nationwide healthcare is often: "Why should I pay for other peoples health issues if I'm healthy." Or to put it differently, the every man for themselves mentality. What are your thoughts on nationwide healthcare then, as an extended version of CHM, but where the values (aka, rules of elegibility, and what is covered/not covered) are those of the nation instead of those of specific Christian organizations? Is it really important for you for it to be an opt in system? Is it really important that it be based on a specific interpretation of Christian values instead of the larger US values? Or is it just whatever is cheapest? I ask out of interest in understanding varied perspectives, feel free to ignore my questions if you find them too personal.

EADGBE 9y ago
I think most Americans who look deep into it view Health Sharing as a national Healthcare initiative. It's certainly extremely similar to me, minus the contributions coming in post-paycheck. People (Americans) probably couldn't visualize savings with a national system before these really starting to become populate as of late. Maybe because it was mostly just an idea in our situation? (the burden of one spread across all) Let's be honest, the Church is probably better at budgeting for this than the Government. I wouldn't be surprised at all if these become more and more common for the common man that a suggestion to move to a national system is brought up (and taken a bit more seriously).
judah 9y ago
My answers: > What are your thoughts on nationwide healthcare then, as an extended version of CHM, but where the values (aka, rules of elegibility, and what is covered/not covered) are those of the nation instead of those of specific Christian organizations? I don't like it for a few reasons. First, government is famous for inefficiency and bloat. I am certain the government would do a poor job of good, affordable healthcare. (Rational people must concede this given the evidence today.) Secondly, cost will be a problem for any system that covers existing conditions; it's the equivalent to buying house insurance when your house has already burned down. That's not insurance. Third, and most importantly, nationwide insurance is not a self-maintaining community. In small groups that share values, when someone no longer lives according to the community's standards, they're removed from the community. This is not possible in nationwide healthcare. So, someone abusing the medical system or living a lifestyle contrary to standards of our community cannot continue abusing the system. This self-maintaining socialistic system works well in smaller communities with shared values, where abusers can be removed from the community. In a nationwide system, this isn't possible, driving up costs further. > Is it really important for you for it to be an opt in system? Yes. I do not wished to be coerced into government programs of any kind. That this is both private and optional makes this attractive to me from a libertarian standpoint. > Is it really important that it be based on a specific interpretation of Christian values instead of the larger US values? Not a specific interpretation, no. Just the basic interpretation of caring for the sick; a plain interpretation of Jesus' words[0]. [0]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+25%3A35-40&version=TLV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+25%3A35...
- didibus 9y ago
  Hey, thanks for answering. It was nice to hear someone's else perspective.

EADGBE 9y ago

I think most Americans who look deep into it view Health Sharing as a national Healthcare initiative. It's certainly extremely similar to me, minus the contributions coming in post-paycheck. People (Americans) probably couldn't visualize savings with a national system before these really starting to become populate as of late. Maybe because it was mostly just an idea in our situation? (the burden of one spread across all) Let's be honest, the Church is probably better at budgeting for this than the Government. I wouldn't be surprised at all if these become more and more common for the common man that a suggestion to move to a national system is brought up (and taken a bit more seriously).

judah 9y ago

My answers: > What are your thoughts on nationwide healthcare then, as an extended version of CHM, but where the values (aka, rules of elegibility, and what is covered/not covered) are those of the nation instead of those of specific Christian organizations? I don't like it for a few reasons. First, government is famous for inefficiency and bloat. I am certain the government would do a poor job of good, affordable healthcare. (Rational people must concede this given the evidence today.) Secondly, cost will be a problem for any system that covers existing conditions; it's the equivalent to buying house insurance when your house has already burned down. That's not insurance. Third, and most importantly, nationwide insurance is not a self-maintaining community. In small groups that share values, when someone no longer lives according to the community's standards, they're removed from the community. This is not possible in nationwide healthcare. So, someone abusing the medical system or living a lifestyle contrary to standards of our community cannot continue abusing the system. This self-maintaining socialistic system works well in smaller communities with shared values, where abusers can be removed from the community. In a nationwide system, this isn't possible, driving up costs further. > Is it really important for you for it to be an opt in system? Yes. I do not wished to be coerced into government programs of any kind. That this is both private and optional makes this attractive to me from a libertarian standpoint. > Is it really important that it be based on a specific interpretation of Christian values instead of the larger US values? Not a specific interpretation, no. Just the basic interpretation of caring for the sick; a plain interpretation of Jesus' words[0]. [0]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+25%3A35-40&version=TLV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+25%3A35...

didibus 9y ago
Hey, thanks for answering. It was nice to hear someone's else perspective.