In addition, my brief for local autonomy comes directly from the life the Church and the various canons which came out of the Church and are used as guides for Her life. It has absolutely nothing to do with any perceived antipathy. (Instead, please view any negative remarks as emanating from a structural defect I have –that is not being able to suffer fools [or foolish arguments] gladly.) I would be absolutely opposed to Patriarch Kirill going into Greece or Bulgaria, or wherever and stating that he has “jurisdiction” over these lands. I suppose you would be too.

May I suggest Zizioulis’ “Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood,” St Cyprian of Carthage’s “To the Catholic Church,” Canon 13 of Carthage, and the other canons mentioned in Patriarch Pimen’s letter to Patriarch Athenagoras regarding the granting of autocephaly to a daughter church which was no longer part of the same polity? This will give you a better idea of what animates me. Hint: it’s not papalism or “submission to first thrones.” Luckily for me, it looks like the bishops who met at Chambesy have the same idea.

That’s the problem. There are as numerous implementations of UHC as there are nations that adopt it. Some countries in the EU provide basic coverage only. The Netherlands utilizes a dual-system: primary and curative is through private while long-term care for the disabled and elderly is social insurance. Israel seems to have been relatively successful with its utilization of several HMOs which effectively compete for their consumers, as they may switch up to once annually.

On the flip side, the various critiques of UHC (at least the ones I’ve read), are non-specific and vague. They’re often opposed to it out of principle without touching on any of these details. Even the Cato Institute, who’s opinions I tend to take seriously, didn’t seem to offer a whole lot of substance. Are we opposed to any social insurance or just some? Can the way those funds are managed make a difference in this at all?

So, I don’t understand why I’m being accused of making unreasoned and overly moralistic assertions when it seems that most rejection of any and all forms of UHC can be summed up as “government is inept”. That’s not very helpful and it doesn’t seem very rational.

By the way, I don’t think it’s out of the question to bring up the moral considerations of this issue (which are admittedly complex). Abortion is a moral issue is it not? (although I think it’s a failure to acknowledge the basic civil liberties to the unborn as well). It’s not merely an issue of pragmatism.

“Ideology” here is defined in the philosophical sense: a self-contained and self-referencing system of ideas.

I just don’t understand why the Right, for all its defense of life, so rejects the notion that people in their final stages of life deserve some degree of dignity and care just because they’re not fortunate enough to be employed or of sufficient means to be covered.

…works. It requires the respondent to prove his motives; to disprove to James that someone against government run health care is callous towards those who are “not fortunate enough to be employed or of sufficient means to be covered.”

The statement has no substantive content. It is moralistic. Further, after someone takes the time to answer it, the discussion won’t return to substantive debate. Another moralistic assertion will be thrown out, starting the cycle all over again.

From the other direction, when James is challenged on an idea of his, he will simply make a counter-assertion to your challenge, a kind of mirror opposite that implies that a strong equivalency exists between the two statements, and thereby (in his mind) neutralizes your objection. When you point this out, he returns to an attack on motives.

For example, note my comment about the DMV above. James responds with two counter-assertions: 1) his cable company has horrible customer service; and 2) some government departments run efficiently. The implied conclusion: The claim that government cannot handle health care is false. Discussion is closed.

The DMV comment is basically a throw-away line. It’s not worth defending and most everyone knows it is true. So look past the content for a second and examine how James’ response is structured. He posits a counter assertion (two in this case), as if the assertions themselves resolve this part of the argument. They don’t of course, as anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of the issue knows.

If James doesn’t really understand why “the Right” holds the position it does on health care, then it is his responsibility to read more and learn about it. Moreover, if he thinks he understands how government run health care will work, then his defense has to be more than moralistic assertions attacking the motives of those who oppose it. Moralistic assertions are not the same things as ideas, but in this Oprah generation where we have lost the distinction between sentiment and reason, many people believe they are one and the same.

James can’t seem to break out of this cycle. It’s reflexive. It leads has led me to conclude his thinking is bound to moral relativism.

Look Tom, pointing out James’ captivity to moral relativism is not out of bounds. It is part of discourse in the public square.

I have no problem with your critique of my words about James’ comments. But you will have to be clearer about what parts you find objectionable and why you find them that way.

BTW, I’ve debated James before so my comments aren’t drawn out of thin air.

Do you see the similarity to what yo just accused JAmes of doing and what I accuse George and some others on this site of doing?

Thus, when unable to defend his own position, he will attack your motives instead:

I just don’t understand why the Right, for all its defense of life, so rejects the notion that people in their final stages of life deserve some degree of dignity and care just because they’re not fortunate enough to be employed or of sufficient means to be covered.

…thereby starting the entire cycle all over again. As I said, impenetrable.

Maybe I misunderstand the rules of engagement here. Must I defend the affirmative of “government should control health care” in order to ridicule an unhelpful apocalyptic conspiracy argument?

I could play Devil’s Advocate for the affirmative, but I’ll refrain. Ars longa, vida brevis.

By this I mean the elderly, the overweight. Under the proposal being looked at right now, these procedures will be severely limited: C-sections and back surgeries are two that come instantly to mind.

The reason I keep coming back to political conservatism (as opposed to libertarianism) is because the conservatives looks at reality as opposed to theory. In other words, Aristotle was more right than Plato. For instance, I have no essential beef with homosexuals wanting to “solemnize” their unions in a faux-heretical service, but I feel I have to fight even against this concession because inevitably leads to civil sanction. Why am I against politically-sanctioned “gay marriage”? Because at that point, the polygamist will say there is no logical reason to prevent polygamy. (And they’d be right.) So what’s wrong with polygamy? Answer: all polygynous societies are inherently violent, far more violent than monogamous ones. They are also far more hierarchical, patriarchal, and they lend themselves to tyranny.

So forgive the digression, but Christians must look at the world as it is: full of sin and not as it should be, because it cannot be that which we wish. That does not mean that the Church should not be involved. Indeed, it is ONLY the Church which should be involved in eleemoysenery activities, not the State.

Also, universal schemes invariably create a much worse caste system if you will, in which those who are wealthy will opt out of the government system and take their dollars elsewhere, invariably drawing the best and the brightest of the medical profession with them.

Under our current system, if they’re treated (and many hospitals will accept the uninsured to the ER), the uninsured pays nothing. Under universal health care, it seems that they’d actually be paying something if they have any income at all.

I just don’t understand why the Right, for all its defense of life, so rejects the notion that people in their final stages of life deserve some degree of dignity and care just because they’re not fortunate enough to be employed or of sufficient means to be covered.

Name one thing.

Government has worked really hard to make health care as expensive as possible so that it can step in and ‘solve’ the problem it has helpled to create. Medicare reimbursement rates are part of that btw.

The politicians have also quite successfully propagandized the idea that people should have zero responsibility for their own health and bear no cost for medical care at all.

People have bought into the idea that technology always results in perfect outcomes (full recovery, no death). Many doctors and hospitals market such obscene ideas which lawyers take full advantage of.

All too often insurance companies forget that they are dealing with human beings although the ‘spreading of risk’ you mentioned also means less specificity of care than many people would like. We also tend to forget that “he who pays, decides”

Some doctors, clinics and hospitals practice fraud simply because they are greedy costing billions of dollars and killing people at times.

In the midst of all this a great many excellent health care professionals heal with human touch and concern using technology where needed and appropriate hampered as they are by legal considerations, government and insurance rules.

Do you think for a minute that government run health care will be administered at the local level? You’ve got to be kidding me.

The overlay of a corrupt, power-mad bureaucracy onto a system struggling to be human as it is–well, it’s insane. But the almighty ‘American people’ will probably buy further into the insanity because of greed, ignorance, apathy and the incessant demogoguery of the political class.

Statism is a violation of everything Christ died to free us from. It is a violation of the revelation that Christ brought us of what being human really means. That is exactly why every statist government sooner or later gets around to persecuting Christians.

Obama really means to free us from our irrational adherence to faith in God replacing it with a forced subservience to the state.