When will the USA have free and universal health care?
#31
ErinIsNice Wrote:A for profit medical industry says that money is the deciding factor on who is "deserving" of care.  This is very calvinist "if God loves you, you'll have material wealth" thinking, which is obviously not Catholic.  We believe what Christ said about what we do to the least of His brothers, right?

If the least of Christ's brothers are denied medical care because they are poor, what does that say?

While I don't disagree with the premise, the practical application is a bit tricky. If it's a Christian duty to help provide for the unfortunate, isn't it then the duty of Christians and Christian organizations to provide that care? Universal health care is the government forcibly taking wealth from the "haves" in order to provide services to the "have-nots." While you can argue that it is a Christian's duty to provide for the disadvantaged, coerced charity hardly seems Christian.
Reply
#32
Zyphane Wrote:
ErinIsNice Wrote:A for profit medical industry says that money is the deciding factor on who is "deserving" of care.  This is very calvinist "if God loves you, you'll have material wealth" thinking, which is obviously not Catholic.  We believe what Christ said about what we do to the least of His brothers, right?

If the least of Christ's brothers are denied medical care because they are poor, what does that say?

While I don't disagree with the premise, the practical application is a bit tricky. If it's a Christian duty to help provide for the unfortunate, isn't it then the duty of Christians and Christian organizations to provide that care? Universal health care is the government forcibly taking wealth from the "haves" in order to provide services to the "have-nots." While you can argue that it is a Christian's duty to provide for the disadvantaged, coerced charity hardly seems Christian.

I'm going to spin my wheels here...

Having a for-profit health care system is morally wrong. Putting a price on the lives of human beings is morally wrong. Making money by essentially sentencing people to death is morally wrong. They routinely deny payment for procedures that they deem as too costly by using any excuse they can: "experimental," "pre-existing condition," etc...

Are they evil? I don't know. It is the nature of the business. They are required to make a profit. They just can't go handing out needed medical care willy-nilly. I'm convinced they find ways to screw with me. For the longest time, they had my first and last name reversed so that when a claim was submitted and it said "Loma-Lou Paloma" instead of "Paloma Loma-Lou" they would reject it by saying "No such person." It usually took submitting it about 3 times for claims to stick and it took a year of constant phone calls to get my name straightened out. I was told by an insider that they willfully act stupid to delay paying.

I'm close with a cousin of mine who works for Blue Shield. I get absolutely sickened by her stories about work in which she laughs about all the people she gets to deny coverage for. And that is what insurance companies do: They hire undereducated robots that are willing to just read from a screen and pay them big bucks to not have to think..."Crohn's disease? Denied. Diabetes? Denied. A heart murmur? Denied." Whereas if they hired people with an ounce of medical training to do this, you would have them saying, "Wait a minute, that isn't right, this person needs care."

I don't know what the solution is but having government sponsored or subsidized health care really isn't a bad idea. At least they would not be required to answer to stockholders who want to see their shares go up at least half a percentage point.
Reply
#33
Quote: Putting a price on the lives of human beings is morally wrong.

BAAAAA-LONEY!!!

We do it EVERY day.

When you go to the drugstore, do you say, "I can't put a price on my life, just give me the MOST expensive prescription!" ?

When you sign up for health insurance, do you say, "You can't put a price on good health, I'll just sign up for the most expensive plan" ?

When you are shopping for a car, do you buy a car that suits your needs and budget, or, do you say, "Hey, I can't put a price on my health and safety in a accident; let me go ahead and get that $43,000 Volvo because I know it is the safest!"

No, of course you don't.  Because that is idiotic.  What you do, like a rational person, is make an ECONOMIC choice based on how much of a premium you place on your health.
Reply
#34
Quote: It's also a good argument for not having patents on anything.

Oh, yes, absolutely, or copyrights, either.

Because I'd LOVE to spend time, effort, money, possibly years of my life writing a song, or writing a book, or inventing an instant camera, or a business model of how to rent DVD's over the Internet, and then have no protection of my effort.

I'd LOVE to spread the result of my effort to the world, gratis.  Because you all will send me McDonald's gift certificates so I don't starve, right?

Um, no.

Patents protect the economic rights of people who invent useful things.  They allow an inventor to - as the Good Book enjoins - enjoy the fruits of their labors.  Wealth is not evil, and profit is not evil.
Reply
#35
DesperatelySeeking Wrote:
Quote: Putting a price on the lives of human beings is morally wrong.

BAAAAA-LONEY!!!

We do it EVERY day.

When you go to the drugstore, do you say, "I can't put a price on my life, just give me the MOST expensive prescription!" ?

When you sign up for health insurance, do you say, "You can't put a price on good health, I'll just sign up for the most expensive plan" ?

When you are shopping for a car, do you buy a car that suits your needs and budget, or, do you say, "Hey, I can't put a price on my health and safety in a accident; let me go ahead and get that $43,000 Volvo because I know it is the safest!"

No, of course you don't.  Because that is idiotic.  What you do, like a rational person, is make an ECONOMIC choice based on how much of a premium you place on your health.

Just because we do it every day? That makes my statement baaaaa-loney? Ok.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Buying store brand tylenol because the name brand is too expensive isn't going to kill you. Neither is getting the generic prescription instead of the name brand 99.9% of the time.

Buying a cheaper car that is less safe isn't necessarily going to kill you. Neither is getting a basic health care plan vs. the PPO of the gods.

What will kill you is if you are seriously ill and an insurance company decides that it isn't cost effective to treat you. Or excuse me, "cover the cost of your treatment" which for most working people, is essentially a death sentence.
Reply
#36
Quote:A for profit medical industry says that money is the deciding factor on who is "deserving" of care.  This is very calvinist "if God loves you, you'll have material wealth" thinking, which is obviously not Catholic.  We believe what Christ said about what we do to the least of His brothers, right?

If the least of Christ's brothers are denied medical care because they are poor, what does that say?

In a non-profit medical industry, who pays the bills?  Where does the money come from for more hospitals, more nurses, more gauze & medical tape & Vicks Vapo-Rub?

I'm not in the medical profession, but, my grandfather was a surgeon and my grandmother and mother were nurses.  Didn't the "profit" of the medical industry allow them to earn a living?  Or, should all medical people be on the government payroll, and limited to a "just" wage?  And of course we'll need to get your approval of what "just" is, right?

Money is not the deciding factor in who gets care in every case.  You may have seen, in any emergency room in the land, a sign stating that the availability of treatment is not dependent upon the ability to pay?

I think you're conflating "routine medical care for the truly needy" and "I got a different test than my doctor wanted because the insurance company is trying to control costs".  Those two are not quite the same thing.

Reply
#37
DesperatelySeeking Wrote:Money is not the deciding factor in who gets care in every case.  You may have seen, in any emergency room in the land, a sign stating that the availability of treatment is not dependent upon the ability to pay?

First of all, the emergency room is for emergencies, not routine medical needs or chronic illnesses, and it hurts everyone when the uninsured have to use them for non-emergencies.

Secondly, if you have ever been in the er (in a real emergency) with an uninsured person, you see that they get treated very poorly in comparison to the insured.
Reply
#38
Quote: get treated very poorly in comparison to the insured.

I don't disagree at all, but don't change the terms of the argument in the middle of the game.  Getting treated poorly is not the same thing as having treatment denied.
Reply
#39
ResiduumRevertetur Wrote:
DarkKnight Wrote:"There is no such thing as free [healthcare]."

It will be empowering the government to make the decision who lives, dies or is treated and allowed to malinger.

There is nothing "civilized" about having the State holding one in the state of perpetual childhood/dependence.

Those "civilized" countries have abysmal cancer survival rates for example, just because of how efficient the respective governments are in making health care decisions.

All I have to do is look at the California budget process, the DMV or any other government agency to say "No way."
"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what is costs when it's free." - PJ O'Rourke

And wasn't there just some woman in Great Britain who was encouraging the elderly to commit suicide to save the state's resources? Lovely.

Don't know about your instance, but Oregon's socialized health care DID send such a letter to a newly diagnosed cancer patient, saying we won't give you treatment that will only extend your life (without a cure), however, if you'd like to talk about exit strategies, here's the number to call.

Grand, loving, caring.
Reply
#40
I love how people persist in attacking the non-existent straw man called "America's private health care system".  Canada's is 100% socialist, while America's is about 90% socialist.  You are attacking the inevitable failings of a government regulated industry, the results of which invariably include cost-cutting, shortages, long wait times and treatment denial.  Governments are incapable of calculating supply and demand.  This is why the Soviet Union collapsed.  In Canada, a government report stated the average person waits 13 hours to be treated after entering the ER.  The government pours in billions of additional dollars every year and health care is still deteriorating.  Within fifteen years the system will collapse and black market care (such as flying to the States) will dominate as baby boomers put undue stress on hospitals. 

High costs, cutbacks and shortages will always happen in a socialist health system because capital (supplied by taxpayers rather than customers) is an expense rather than an investment.  Government has no incentive to supply more care at a cheaper cost (ie. be productive).  Its aim is to spend what it has most effectively, a task it fails because governments cannot perform supply and demand calculation.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)