Can you be a truly good Christian, yet be against universal healthcare?

[777]

Consider these statistics for a moment

In the United States alone
Over 40 million uninsured, many children, elderly, working poor families
Lucky enough to have a private insurance? You may be denied care, medical claims, etc …
Over million families / individuals file medical bankcrupty every year in the USA. In many other westerns world countries this is unheard of.

US system is most expensive in the world, yet in quality and access it rates poorly, around 30th – 40th compared to other healthcare systems in the world.

… and so on …

So, how does a compassionate Christian defend his/her position in support of private healthcare that leaves so many behind, especially children? Or, if you do believe in private system, do you believe you are a compassionate, good Christian?

Also, is there such a thing that a priest, nun, a monk (the most pious persons) supporting a US-type of healthcare system as lined above, leaving behind scores of persons without healthcare?

Would Jesus approve of private healthcare system considering what is in reality?

 

[frazzledgear]

Consider these statistics for a moment

In the United States alone
Over 40 million uninsured, many children, elderly, working poor families
Lucky enough to have a private insurance? You may be denied care, medical claims, etc …
Over million families / individuals file medical bankcrupty every year in the USA. In many other westerns world countries this is unheard of.

US system is most expensive in the world, yet in quality and access it rates poorly, around 30th – 40th compared to other healthcare systems in the world.

… and so on …

So, how does a compassionate Christian defend his/her position in support of private healthcare that leaves so many behind, especially children? Or, if you do believe in private system, do you believe you are a compassionate, good Christian?

Also, is there such a thing that a priest, nun, a monk (the most pious persons) supporting a US-type of healthcare system as lined above, leaving behind scores of persons without healthcare?

Would Jesus approve of private healthcare system considering what is in reality?

I love it when people like you pretend Jesus was in favor of a specific kind of system of government or government policy. Funny, no matter how often I read the Bible -Jesus' message wasn't about people uniting in favor of a specific system of government or government policy. It was a message that what is here on earth is temporary and will pass, that no one will enter heaven without salvation and how to receive that salvation. And that if you love the Lord, then you will follow God's Commandments. And not a one of those is "thou shalt pay burdensome taxes for a universal healthcare system that will cost you in your own level of health and possibly your life expectancy", sorry. If a faceless, inhuman government adopts and provides universal healthcare insurance -what does the heck does that have to do with Jesus at all? But let's pretend it does anyway.

In which case, an intelligent person -Christian or not -would take a good, hard look at the "statistics". Statistics are misleading unless you know HOW certain things are being measured and whether or not everyone is measuring it the same way.

For instance -just one thing that is considered in the measurement of the overall healthcare system of any country. Infant mortality. This one is perhaps THE most misleading "statistic" in the world. While the World Health Organization considers infant mortality to be the number of infant deaths per 1,000 live births -countries are totally free to report that number in accordance to what THEY consider to be a "live birth" and "infant". Which makes for some interesting reporting. For instance, some countries -even a couple of western ones -will report a "live birth" as any baby born after the 24th week of gestation and report any infant deaths for the first three months after birth. Some will stop reporting after the first 6 months. Other countries, especially the less developed ones -will only report as "live birth" babies born after the 32 week of gestation. (That is because babies born before that in those country just don't survive anyway.)

But the US reports ALL live births, regardless of gestational age. We also report all deaths that occur in the first year of life. Extremely premature babies are at high risk of dying -even months later. But there are some countries which will not report that baby as a live birth because it was born prior to whatever cut-off week they have chosen -and even though that child may not die for several weeks, it is not reported as an infant death. It is treated as if a stillborn -not a live birth.

That means we report a whole lot more live births and we report a whole lot more babies dying per 1,000 -but only because we report for a longer period of time than most other nations and we report all live births regardless of their gestational age. Yet compared to a country that reports as "live births" only those babies born after 32 weeks gestational age and stops reporting any infant deaths that occure after 3 months -it looks like the US has a ridiculously high infant moratlity rate. So comparisons of healthcare systems is only possible between countries with identical methods of reporting -which are very few.

Then you have to go look at the "benefit" countries have gotten from universal healthcare. And the results of THAT should be cause for concern -if your concern is REALLY doing the best thing possible for as many people as possible. Every single nation that has adopted universal healthcare -has paid a HUGE price for it that has not been offset by the benefits. And I'm not just talking about the fact people pay more in taxes than they would have voluntarily paid if it came straight out of their pocket for that identical level of care. Nations like the UK have some extraordinary findings that should give anyone with a brain real pause.

People are now dying at a higher rate of illnesses that once had a lower death rate in nations like the UK. That is because the waiting period to be seen for a routine doctor's appointment is 18-24 months. (And people bitch about waiting 4-6 weeks here.) So by the time a person who may be concerned about a slight change in health is even seen by a doctor -the odds that it has continued to progress to a serious or even critical problem -rises. When that happens, a person is more likely to die at that stage. So you see people die at a higher rate of heart disease, stroke, all sorts of cancers and even infections -for the sole reason they were just seen too late in the course of disease. Then you add in the REALLY nasty reality.

When you have universal healthcare, people figure that healthcare is free -and you see people overutilize the system. They decide to go see the doctor for things they wouldn't bother with if paying for it directly out of their pocket -which is what causes the back-up in getting in to see the doctor in the first place. Elderly people naturally have more healthcare concerns than the young -and nations like the UK figure the real solution to their problems is to ration their healthcare -at the expense of the elderly. In the UK, people die a much higher rate of diseases like stroke -appalling so. And in the UK they are even refusing to treat elderly people for some kinds of cancer that would be survivable if they were just given treatment. In other words -they are letting old people die of a disease that they would likely survive if they were just TREATED for it. Under our system -if doctors believe a person is likely to survive their illness if treated for it -then they DO IT. Regardless of their age. They will even do it if the odds are not high for survival because it is still better odds than the zero chance of survival they will have if left untreated.

So I don't see how a Christian could even support universal healthcare in the first place. We don't tax everyone so that government will give every single person their own home, do we? We don't tax every single person in order to have government provide clothing to every single person. We don't tax everyone so that government will provide every single person with food -all things we need to actually survive. Every single person doesn't need healthcare in order to survive though -but we don't expect government to provide all the things every single person DOES need to survive.
The truly big concern with healthcare in this country is targeting who actually needs help and who actually does not for reasons of their own choice. Those of most concern are those who desire healthcare insurance but cannot afford it but do not qualify for Medicaid -and those with inadequate healthcare insurance for whom a catastrophic illness would financially wipe them out. Those are the two big problems.

So are you REALLY insisting that it is just impossible for a decent society to figure out how to help the people who actually require assistance - without the incredible burdensome taxes on everyone that it will require in order for government to then provide healthcare insurance to EVERYONE? Even when it means far more people will sacrifice their own health and even life expectancy who otherwise would not - in order to do just that? And what is this STUPID notion that government is the most cost effective, most efficient means of providing healthcare to everyone in the first place? Government was NEVER created to be cost effective or efficient about ANYTHING.

Somehow I don't see Jesus insisting that everyone else must sacrifice their own health and even their life expectancy and assume onerous taxes -as the only or even best possible answer here.

 

[jillian]

Nah... Jesus never said "give unto Caesar... "... nope. And, of course, he'd have said everyone should fend for themselves.

I can just see him standing on the Temple Mount saying how he believes in darwinian social policy.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Nah... Jesus never said "give unto Caesar... "... nope. And, of course, he'd have said everyone should fend for themselves.

I can just see him standing on the Temple Mount saying how he believes in darwinian social policy.

Twist it anyway you want, I notice you did not addrees the meat of the argument. I wonder why that is?

 

[MasterChief]

Would Jesus approve of private health care system considering what is in reality?

I don't what bible you're reading but in mine, Jesus does not support any government system, he just touches them and heals them. Now if I'm remembering my history right, many of the first hospitals in the US were started by churches and I have not heard of a hospital or doctor who has ever turned a child away.

It sounds like you're dialing up the fear meter so you can justify robbing from some and giving to others. If you believe in universal health care run by the government, next time you're sick go to Cuba and see how good things are there.

 

[Care4all]

Consider these statistics for a moment

In the United States alone
Over 40 million uninsured, many children, elderly, working poor families
Lucky enough to have a private insurance? You may be denied care, medical claims, etc …
Over million families / individuals file medical bankcrupty every year in the USA. In many other westerns world countries this is unheard of.

US system is most expensive in the world, yet in quality and access it rates poorly, around 30th – 40th compared to other healthcare systems in the world.

… and so on …

So, how does a compassionate Christian defend his/her position in support of private healthcare that leaves so many behind, especially children? Or, if you do believe in private system, do you believe you are a compassionate, good Christian?

Also, is there such a thing that a priest, nun, a monk (the most pious persons) supporting a US-type of healthcare system as lined above, leaving behind scores of persons without healthcare?

Would Jesus approve of private healthcare system considering what is in reality?

yes, we have a major problem with our healthcare system, it is unaffordable to many people.

but the only sollution or even the best sollution may not be a quasi universal healthcare plan.

The proposals from the presidential candidates will not really help with cutting any kind of healthcare overhead because they both have included the private insurer as the managers of our health care and they are precisely 33% of our healthcare costs now....for doing absolutely nothing but being the MIDDLE MAN, who takes his take of the profits.....they don't supply any kind of health care, they are not the hospitals and doctors and nurses and medicines and MRI's..... they just handle the paperwork, and also figure out ways to make doctors not give us the healthcare we need without their approval to cut costs to make them more profitable.

our healthcare system does need reform, comprehensive reform....to deny such is ridiculous.

if we go on to a system where businesses no longer share in the cost of the 60% of the people covered, and we the usa citizen has to pay for everyone's healthcare, we as a country, will go bankrupt and more than the 40 million will be at risk...we are already going to go bankrupt with medicare coverage is what all projections point to....especially with all the Boomer citizens getting ready to go on it....

We got big problems with the cost of medical care....and unless we figure out how to reduce the costs, BEFORE any kind of universal plan is set up, we will be raked over the coals making the pharma industry and the hmo's and the hospitals and the insurance companies richer and richer, at the tax payer's expense and as said, bankrupt the country....leaving even more people vulnerable to bad times.

But to address your issue regarding Christians and Jesus....yes, i think that Jesus would show compassion and want us to do something to help all of us with our healthcare....and with poverty in general...but what i think you fail to recognize is that there is not only one way to address these issues....and there are legitimate concerns that should be taken in to consideration when choosing the methods of reform.

being allowed to negotiate bulk discounts on our medicare program that the gvt is paying for would be a huge beginning in cutting costs...streamlining all hospitals paperwork could save a bundle too....this has to be done before a universal plan ever comes in to play imo...along with many other reforms, with some regulating too....

btw, i had read once that almost all of those people that declared medical bankruptcy HAD HEALTH INSURANCE, but still went broke on the medical care they needed, that was not paid for by the health insurance companies because of the limits they put on their payouts and on tests that are permitted to be performed.

care

 

[jillian]

Twist it anyway you want, I notice you did not addrees the meat of the argument. I wonder why that is?

Because, frankly, there isn't anything to discuss. Jesus isn't here to say how he'd have voted on the issue. Do I think people should have health coveage? Yes. But that has nothing to do with Jesus.

 

[Dogger]

I don't what bible you're reading but in mine, Jesus does not support any government system, he just touches them and heals them.

Jesus also led by example.

How much did he charge people for healing them?

 

[frazzledgear]

Because, frankly, there isn't anything to discuss. Jesus isn't here to say how he'd have voted on the issue. Do I think people should have health coveage? Yes. But that has nothing to do with Jesus.

Part of the problem is being glossed over and entirely ignored. But it is very real. Ok, let's all be appalled at the fact that 40 million people in the US have no healthcare coverage. Is that all you need to know? NO

1. It is also a fact that within six months, that 85% of those 40 million will be totally different people and a year later -nearly 100% will be totally different people. That is because 85% of those without healthcare insurance at any given time -will have it within six months or LESS and nearly 100% will have it within a year. So we aren't talking about a solid figure about people who are ALWAYS without healthcare insurance. We are talking about people who lack it for a few months only at any given time.

2. Then you have to look at those of that 40 million who could afford it -but choose NOT to buy it. More than 70% are people in their 20s and early 30s who are unmarried and could afford it but CHOOSE not to buy it. And for them it may well make perfect sense. They tend not to be married, have no dependents and are perfectly healthy. Of all age groups that end up requiring expensive medical care -these are the very people least likely to even utilize medical care, much less require the most expensive medical care.

So -are you going to insist they MUST buy it anyway even though they have decided it makes no sense to do so at that point in their lives and in nearly all cases -it is actually a financially wise decision?

The problem with healthcare is this. Those who want to purchase healthcare insurance but just can't afford it and also don't qualify for Medicare. And those who have purchased AND can only afford inadequate healthcare for whom a catostrophic illness would wipe them out financially.

Sorry, but not even Jesus could convince me the only possible way -much less the BEST way -to make sure these people have assistance when needed -is to impose onerous taxes on EVERYONE for a system that will actually cost others their own health and even life expectancy.

 

[Care4all]

I don't what bible you're reading but in mine, Jesus does not support any government system, he just touches them and heals them. Now if I'm remembering my history right, many of the first hospitals in the US were started by churches and I have not heard of a hospital or doctor who has ever turned a child away.

It sounds like you're dialing up the fear meter so you can justify robbing from some and giving to others. If you believe in universal health care run by the government, next time you're sick go to Cuba and see how good things are there.

i think cuba ranks higher than us in healthcare if memory serves so your example doesn't prove a point in your favor....

jesus said to the rich man wanting to know what he could do to be saved and was told by Christ to give up all his money...

and that the love of money, IS the root of all evil....

he also said to ''give unto caesar what is his'' ....as jillian mentioned

and he sent the apostles out with only the sandals on their feet....

and he flipped the tables of the money changing profiteers in the temple square....

pardon my frankness but i don't think Jesus gave two hoots about YOU Holding on to your precious money because it is yours and you earned it kind of mentality....in fact, i think he condemned it, many times over masterchief???

the Levite and the priest passed the injured man on the side of the road, but the good samaritan man....who was considered from a lower in class and stature tribe, is the one who stopped and helped the left for dead, robbed man....

care

 

[frazzledgear]

Jesus also led by example.

How much did he charge people for healing them?

I love this one -Jesus didn't charge for healing so NO ONE is allowed to do so. So how much did his father one earth, Joseph -charge for his carpentry work? Surely that was provided for free and Joseph provided for his family by "grace", right? I guess Jesus did those things to show why doctors should be offering their services for free -instead of showing the wonder of God and how He could do anything even when other men gave up hope, right?

Just because YOU didn't choose to go into healthcare doesn't give you a "right" to the expertise, education and skill of someone who did and spent years not just learning it -but took on an incredible burden of debt at the same time that you CHOSE not to. When a doctor graduates from medical school, the average level of debt they already owe exceeds $150,000 and takes nearly 20 years to pay off. Before they even decide on a specialty. But they still OWE their expertise, knowledge and skill to YOU and society anyway, right? Just because they chose that occupation and you didn't? That CHOICE makes the difference in whether you are "entitled" to the benefit of their years of training, education and skills -right?

That is like pretending that because you are a baker and I'm not -and hey, I've got to eat or I will DIE -I am entitled to the fruits of YOUR labor and should be given what you bake for FREE, everyone else should be forced to pay onerous taxes so I can have it - and that baker, along with all taxpayers should just suck it up.

But here is the flaw in your logic. I really do have to eat just to survive. So does every other single person. But every single person does not need healthcare in order to survive -people have, do and will continue to never see a doctor and survive just fine. You are confusing what you WANT with what you actually NEED to survive. There is no RIGHT in our Constitution to the fruits of someone else's labor, skill or education. There is no such thing as a "right" to healthcare -much less a "right" to healthcare insurance.

And oddly enough -we don't impose onerous taxes on everyone else in order to provide EVERY SINGLE PERSON with housing, clothing and food. The very things we ALL actually need in order to just survive. We managed to figure out how to provide all that for those who cannot do it for themselves without government stepping in and imposing onerous taxes in order to provide it to EVERY single person. But impossible when it comes to healthcare? ROFL! You people are just nuts.

If society considered shoes necessary for life -do you really think that government could provide shoes to every single person better than the private sector? Then why isn't it already doing it? Because we know it can't do it better. Government wasn't created to be a business entrepreneur in the first place. Our Constitution actually does not allow it to function in accordance with the bottom line or cost effectiveness in mind -or even to consider such things important at all. Which may explain why the bottom line, cost efficiency and effectiveness are the first things thrown out when government tries to provide ANYTHING other than that it was originally intended to provide in the first place -and why it will it will cost you FAR more to get just about ANYTHING through government instead of the private sector. Every single time. The private sector serves a very real purpose -it provides you with the goods and services you WANT -at the best prices. Government can NEVER, EVER do that.

I'm always amazed at those who think government is this all-wise, all-knowing mystical entity -that for ANY problem, it and it alone -has the answer. It is just other PEOPLE. People who may be dumber, less imaginative and ALWAYS less knowing about what is in your best interest than YOU know. Not only is government rarely the answer to any given problem -it is even more rarely the BEST answer.

Until you universal healthcare whackos can explain why government should be imposing onerous taxes on us ALL in order to anwer this particular question -but doesn't do so in order to provide every single person with housing, clothing and food -you are actually insisting that you consider healthcare far more important than FOOD. Yet people manage to eat in this country without government having to tax and provide us all with our daily ration of food. How is that? Especially given the FACT that the biggest healthcare concern among our poorest is OBESITY?

 

[frazzledgear]

i think cuba ranks higher than us in healthcare if memory serves so your example doesn't prove a point in your favor....

jesus said to the rich man wanting to know what he could do to be saved and was told by Christ to give up all his money...

and that the love of money, IS the root of all evil....

he also said to ''give unto caesar what is his'' ....as jillian mentioned

and he sent the apostles out with only the sandals on their feet....

and he flipped the tables of the money changing profiteers in the temple square....

pardon my frankness but i don't think Jesus gave two hoots about YOU Holding on to your precious money because it is yours and you earned it kind of mentality....in fact, i think he condemned it, many times over masterchief???

the Levite and the priest passed the injured man on the side of the road, but the good samaritan man....who was considered from a lower in class and stature tribe, is the one who stopped and helped the left for dead, robbed man....

care

If you think Cuba outranks the US on healthcare......I have some property you might be interested in. Would you REALLY rather be in Cuba when you have a stroke, cancer or heart attack over being in the US? The answer to that question or any question about preferring to be in ANY other country with a specific illness -tells you everything you really need to know.

In Cuba -just as is true among in all elitist systems (communism is always an elitist system in practice)-the healthcare available for the elite and party faithful, is much different from that provided for the average Joe who is actually paying for it. Cuba has an UNDENIABLE but distinct, sharply differentiated two-tiered healthcare system - and just guess who is at the bottom? Go ahead and guess which tier of that system is treating Fidel that is never accessible by the average Cuban.

But hey -if you think Cuba does it better somehow, their doctors are smarter and better educated, our medical institutions totally missing something that tiny island has alone and that the issue of who has paid for your healthcare insurance really determines the quality of healthcare you have access to - then I suggest the next time you have a serious health problem, you go visit the few doctors available in Cuba whose primary concern is whether their communist government approves your visit or not - over the tens and tens of thousands of doctors available in this country who really don't give a shit what your insurance is or what form of government you live under. Must explain why so many Nobel prize winners in medicine come from Cuba instead of the US, right? ROFL

 

[Diuretic]

Cuba - a developing nation, poor. The US - a developed nation, the wealthiest nation in the world. If you have to denigrate Cuba to pump up the US then you're really clutching at straws Frazz. If you want to compare health care systems then try matching a couple of reasonably matched competitors - say France and the US.

 

[frazzledgear]

Cuba - a developing nation, poor. The US - a developed nation, the wealthiest nation in the world. If you have to denigrate Cuba to pump up the US then you're really clutching at straws Frazz. If you want to compare health care systems then try matching a couple of reasonably matched competitors - say France and the US.

I don't HAVE to denigrate Cuba at all. It is leftwing whackos in this country who insist that Cuba has a superior healthcare system just because they have a government provided healthcare system -who need a big time REALITY CHECK. Have you missed out on all that PRAISE the lefwing whackos have for the Cuban healthcare system they insist we need to imitate or what? I'm not the one who ever suggested Cuba had a superior system in any way. That has been suggested by MANY people and not just here.

Cuba does not have a superior healthcare system, sorry. The fact their average citizen is heavily taxed for a system that provides far better care for their party elite than the people actually funding it isn't "denigrating" Cuba -it is pointing out REALITY. Fidel isn't paying for his healthcare that the average Cuban will never have -the average Cuban is paying for it even though he can NEVER access it. I don't care how many leftwing whackos insist otherwise. The fact that people are not flocking to Cuba for their healthcare when people from a wide variety of other countries DO come here for their healthcare should tell you something. And it isn't about who is footing the bill for the insurance. I can make an appointment with the very same doctors who are treating Bush -although it may take me a while to be seen. But that would only be due to his practice load -not that I am forbidden from being treated by them. But the average Cuban will never be seen by the doctors treating Fidel. It is the system itself that is corrupt and prevents such a thing. So I guess we should imitate them anyway, huh? Even though the only beneficiaries are the party faithful and not those funding it.

And seriously -after all this time, do you really consider Cuba to be a "developing" country? ROFL Just what are they "developing" that didn't exist when Fidel took power? And why haven't they gotten further along with that "superior" communist system than they have I wonder. And just how long will that "developing" take in your opinion before they aren't a "developing" nation anymore? Why is it people are willing to risk their very lives to escape and Americans can just leave if they want out of our system? So far, the average Cuban has much less access to the average level of healthcare accessed by any recipient of Medicaid anywhere in this country -and that will never change under such a regime and system in Cuba.

Maybe somewhere along the line, some of these leftwing extremists will realize that perhaps more countries need to imitate us instead of insisting we need to imitate countries like Cuba -and recognize the reality that among those who do try to imitate us, they actually end up providing far greater good for their own citizens than countries like Cuba, or its former sponsor state the USSR -could ever do under that system. And that isn't even touching on the subject of how such countries handle political dissidents.

 

[frazzledgear]

Cuba - a developing nation, poor. The US - a developed nation, the wealthiest nation in the world. If you have to denigrate Cuba to pump up the US then you're really clutching at straws Frazz. If you want to compare health care systems then try matching a couple of reasonably matched competitors - say France and the US.

FRANCE? Clearly you haven't done your research. The systems are not comparable in value or cost to the average citizen, sorry. Very few are in other countries when all factors are taken into consideration. Remember -France is the nation where more than 35,000 people, nearly all of whom were elderly - died in a heat wave in 2003, and has had similar death rates in the past during other heat waves. Even though we had similar or even higher temperatures right here where less than 1/4 that number died in FOUR YEARS from the heat nationwide in this country. Any idea what a comparable number per capita would have been in this country just for 2003? Largely due to the fact that in France, people all go on vacation in August -including healthcare workers and hospital workers who just aren't available. All hospitals even in large urban areas closed -much less any institution that would check on the elderly. Just love those systems where Fifi and Pierre come back from their month long jaunt only to find their elderly parents they left baking in their apartments and couldn't be bothered with - had a ripe stench by then?

Ok a whole lot of dead people whenever it gets hot and a ROUTINE double digit unemployment number where if it falls to 10% people are happy -while spoiled Americans are getting hysterical over a 5.5% unemployment rate -to say nothing of the fact that the unemployment rate in France for those in their upper teens to mid-20s is always around 25% and never drops. Yeah -great trade-off.

 

[Ravi]

I don't know if universal health care is the answer but I do think that Jesus must wonder why the richest country in the world doesn't take care of its poor. Definitely going to raise some questions about our individual roles in it when we get to the pearly gates.

Though I'm sure fraz will wow him with his bashing of Cuba and rationale on how dead babies get counted.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Personally if we are going to get free health care, I think we should get FREE Legal help too. The Government can then regulate the amount of money Lawyers get paid for their services and provide us all with free services to ensure we get all our legal needs taken care of. Including those lawsuits for money when injuried, no more big paydays for Lawyers, the Government can run it. We need that service too, just as much as Health Care. And then the Government can control one of the BIGGEST Health care costs of all, insurance against Law Suits.

What do ya think Jillian and Dogger? Gonna support this one too?

 

[Dogger]

I love this one -Jesus didn't charge for healing so NO ONE is allowed to do so.

That's not what I said. When you supply your own arguments and counterarguments, it's not debating, it's masturbating.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That's not what I said. When you supply your own arguments and counterarguments, it's not debating, it's masturbating.

You claimed that because Jesus did not charge for healing we should also provide free health care. Or why else would you even mention it?

Originally Posted by Dogger
Jesus also led by example.

How much did he charge people for healing them?

 

[Dogger]

You claimed that because Jesus did not charge for healing we should also provide free health care. Or why else would you even mention it?

There is a difference between my statement (Jesus made free health care available), and the straw man distortion by shit-for-brains ("Jesus didn't charge for healing so NO ONE is allowed to do so.")

By the way - health care has two components - the providers (doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc.) and the payers (insurance, government and patients). I support reform that only affects the payers and allows the providers to do their jobs without interference. I do not believe a government run health service (like VA) is the best answer.