(30% of) Firms to cut health plans as reform starts: survey

[1holycatholic]

Making most patients pay “up front” for care, to be reimbursed by the government or insurer is, to me, a good idea since it discourages overutilization, one of the worst aspects of our present system…even the private insurance sector.

Relegation of “true” charity cases to local units (and perhaps charitable organizations) is consistent with subsidiarity (also consistent with the Ryan Plan in a general way).

Subsidiarity isn’t applicable to certain segments of the population, it applies to everyone.

French physicians make much less than do American physicians. But then, so do French citizens generally, and the ratio is about the same. So the income of French physicians does not tell us a whole lot.

Sure it does. Per the CIA fact book French wages are 70% of US wages. A US physician makes roughly $198,000 USD which would be $138,600 USD in France if the ratios were comparable, but French physicians earn roughly $55,000 USD. That’s not comparable at all. It tells us that even with the government paying low wages to physicians they still have a problem with runaway costs.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Sure it does. Per the CIA fact book French wages are 70% of US wages. A US physician makes roughly $198,000 USD which would be $138,600 USD in France if the ratios were comparable, but French physicians earn roughly $55,000 USD. That’s not comparable at all. It tells us that even with the government paying low wages to physicians they still have a problem with runaway costs.

I was under the impression that French wages, on average, were rather lower than 70% of average American wages. I’ll research that some more. But you’re saying, in effect, that French physicians would be making the equivalent of about $80,000 for an American doctor. $80,000 would be low in the U.S. for a physician, though i have seen it. But some of those U.S. physicians you mention would be paying off huge school loans, investments in their own clinics, etc. Even some of the “company physicians” have expenses we don’t necessarily know about.

I have seen ER “rent-a-docs” who make about $80,000, and know one neurosurgeon who makes well over two million a year, so I am not sure the average you mentioned really tells us that, e.g., making $80,000/year with no school or clinic loans to pay is all that oppressive. Nor does it tell us nobody would become a physician under those conditions.

But again, I’m not advocating the French system. I do, however, believe there is exactly zero chance that medicine in the U.S. is going to somehow go to a totally free market system. The real question is whether the U.S. is going to go into a totally governmental healthcare system or whether there are perhaps alternatives to that. I think there are.

 

[1holycatholic]

The real question is whether the U.S. is going to go into a totally governmental healthcare system or whether there are perhaps alternatives to that. I think there are.

Of course there are alternatives to federal government involvement in healthcare, but opponents of the principle of subsidiarity don’t see it that way.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Of course there are alternatives to federal government involvement in healthcare, but opponents of the principle of subsidiarity don’t see it that way.

Who has opposed subsidiarity?

 

[1holycatholic]

Who has opposed subsidiarity?

This poster did:

Okay, fair enough; however, since he delivered his message to ‘nations’, it seems to be safe to assume the most encompassing part of government has the priority, which in the US is the federal government.

And what’s worse they implied the pope rejected Church teaching on the matter!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This poster did:

And what’s worse they implied the pope rejected Church teaching on the matter!

You’re posting a ‘falsehood’. I never said I was opposed to subsidiarity. I wondered if the Pope and Cardinal’s message might somehow work with subsidiarity, and even said as much.

You really should consider more honest tactics to discuss topics that you find ‘heated’. :tsktsk:

 

[1holycatholic]

You’re posting a ‘falsehood’. I never said I was opposed to subsidiarity. I wondered if the Pope and Cardinal’s message might somehow work with subsidiarity, and even said as much.

You really should consider more honest tactics to discuss topics that you find ‘heated’. :tsktsk:

Then you admit that federal government involvement in healthcare is explicitly contrary to the Church teaching on subsidiarity as explicitly noted in the Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Church?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Then you admit that federal government involvement in healthcare is explicitly contrary to the Church teaching on subsidiarity as explicitly noted in the Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Church?

I have to wonder, since the Pope and Cardinal both specifically stated ‘government’, in their statements addressed to nations, which was on a national level. Have you found anything where either has specifically said the two cannot work together, or are you still ‘assuming’?

 

[1holycatholic]

I have to wonder, since the Pope and Cardinal both specifically stated ‘government’, in their statements addressed to nations, which was on a national level. Have you found anything where either has specifically said the two cannot work together, or are you still ‘assuming’?

This says they can’t: Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Church

You should read it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

This says they can’t: Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Church

You should read it.

I’m going to quibble with the assertion that the principle of subsidiarity prohibits governmetn involvement in healthcare.

For very good reasons (which are another story) the Popes have supported the principle of subsidiarity which, simply stated, stands for the proposition that any kind of human need should be addressed at the most proximate, capable level. So, for example, if an individual can see to his needs, he should not resort to the central government, the state, the municipality, the parish or even his own family to meet those needs. If, however, he cannot, but the family can, the family, being the most proximate capable provider, should. And so on.

Central government involvement is not precluded, but it should be regarded as a last resort, and only if the need cannot be met at a more proximate level.

So, when it comes to subsidiarity, the real question is whether the central (federal in our case) government is the ONLY level at which the need can be satisfied. If uniformity of outcome is the desired goal, then one could argue that it should be. But there is nothing supporting the idea that uniformity of outcome or access is somehow the only moral resolution, or that the central government is even capable of doing that or doing it without creating greater problems than it solves.

Manifestly, the federal government is not the most proximate source of resolution when it comes to healthcare. Some individuals can pay their own way. A proper organization of society would insist that they do so. Some can’t pay their own way, but have family members who can do it for them. (like the child of a wealthy person). Some (fewer all the time, but some still) can resort to parish or community resources. Some can enter into health insurance agreements at a cost they can afford. Some are so devoid of resources that they can contribute nothing to their own care and so devoid of more proximate benefactors that the federal government may be the only available resource.

Therefore, it is my position that a federal “single payer” plan violates the principle of subsidiarity. So, in my opinion, does a comprehensive federal takeover of healthcare in any guise. It is my further opinion that it is morally distorted for the federal government to seek such a resolution; first because it isn’t necessary and second because the federal government is a woefully blunt instrument; third because all governments rely on coercion to accomplish their goals; fourth because (and this is the evil subsidiarity is intended to combat) extremely powerful and remote entities tend to impose their entire culture and morality onto individuals.

Subsidiarity would not dictate that no governmental level should relieve the need of those who absolutely can do nothing to help themselves and have no more proximate resource. The Social Encyclicals are very clear that there is no inherent reason to go “up the chain”, but only when it’s absolutely necessary to do so.

Somewhat fearing to be labeled a Francophile again, my purpose in pointing out that even in a socialist-tending society like France, subsidiarity is better served than what the left in the U.S. intends for Americans. There are other alternatives, and potential mixes of alternatives. For whatever reason, nobody seems to want to explore them. It seems to be "all or nothing’ for many on both the right and the left. I don’t think the Church teaches either extreme, either in general or as regards healthcare in particular.

 

[rlg94086]

I’m going to quibble with the assertion that the principle of subsidiarity prohibits governmetn involvement in healthcare.

For very good reasons (which are another story) the Popes have supported the principle of subsidiarity which, simply stated, stands for the proposition that any kind of human need should be addressed at the most proximate, capable level. So, for example, if an individual can see to his needs, he should not resort to the central government, the state, the municipality, the parish or even his own family to meet those needs. If, however, he cannot, but the family can, the family, being the most proximate capable provider, should. And so on.

Central government involvement is not precluded, but it should be regarded as a last resort, and only if the need cannot be met at a more proximate level.

So, when it comes to subsidiarity, the real question is whether the central (federal in our case) government is the ONLY level at which the need can be satisfied. If uniformity of outcome is the desired goal, then one could argue that it should be. But there is nothing supporting the idea that uniformity of outcome or access is somehow the only moral resolution, or that the central government is even capable of doing that or doing it without creating greater problems than it solves.

Manifestly, the federal government is not the most proximate source of resolution when it comes to healthcare. Some individuals can pay their own way. A proper organization of society would insist that they do so. Some can’t pay their own way, but have family members who can do it for them. (like the child of a wealthy person). Some (fewer all the time, but some still) can resort to parish or community resources. Some can enter into health insurance agreements at a cost they can afford. Some are so devoid of resources that they can contribute nothing to their own care and so devoid of more proximate benefactors that the federal government may be the only available resource.

Therefore, it is my position that a federal “single payer” plan violates the principle of subsidiarity. So, in my opinion, does a comprehensive federal takeover of healthcare in any guise. It is my further opinion that it is morally distorted for the federal government to seek such a resolution; first because it isn’t necessary and second because the federal government is a woefully blunt instrument; third because all governments rely on coercion to accomplish their goals; fourth because (and this is the evil subsidiarity is intended to combat) extremely powerful and remote entities tend to impose their entire culture and morality onto individuals.

Subsidiarity would not dictate that no governmental level should relieve the need of those who absolutely can do nothing to help themselves and have no more proximate resource. The Social Encyclicals are very clear that there is no inherent reason to go “up the chain”, but only when it’s absolutely necessary to do so.

Somewhat fearing to be labeled a Francophile again, my purpose in pointing out that even in a socialist-tending society like France, subsidiarity is better served than what the left in the U.S. intends for Americans. There are other alternatives, and potential mixes of alternatives. For whatever reason, nobody seems to want to explore them. It seems to be "all or nothing’ for many on both the right and the left. I don’t think the Church teaches either extreme, either in general or as regards healthcare in particular.

That’s why I’m all for solutions at the state level. When people ask Romney about the Massachusett’s plan - if it’s good for MA, why not for the US - they miss the point. The people of each state are competent to determine what will work best for them. Some states may want to split up their plans by region. Certainly, upstate NY’s needs are vastly different than NYC, for example.

That is how subsidiarity applies in the US. We are a big country. France is not. Perhaps, California may want to institute something like France or Germany. I think it is about the same size…if not bigger. I’ll need to check.

 

[1holycatholic]

I’m going to quibble with the assertion that the principle of subsidiarity prohibits governmetn involvement in healthcare.

Who asserted that? It’s not government, but the level of government that is at issue. The assertion has been repeatedly made that:
… the most encompassing part of government has the priority, which in the US is the federal government.
That turns subsidiarity on it’s head. The federal government is last, not first and even then it is not to be a permanent situation.

Central government involvement is not precluded, but it should be regarded as a last resort, and only if the need cannot be met at a more proximate level.

From the Compendium already cited:
188. Various circumstances may make it advisable that the State step in to supply certain functions[401]. One may think, for example, of situations in which it is necessary for the State itself to stimulate the economy because it is impossible for civil society to support initiatives on its own. One may also envision the reality of serious social imbalance or injustice where only the intervention of the public authority can create conditions of greater equality, justice and peace. In light of the principle of subsidiarity, however, this institutional substitution must not continue any longer than is absolutely necessary, since justification for such intervention is found only in the exceptional nature of the situation. In any case, the common good correctly understood, the demands of which will never in any way be contrary to the defence and promotion of the primacy of the person and the way this is expressed in society, must remain the criteria for making decisions concerning the application of the principle of subsidiarity.

So, when it comes to subsidiarity, the real question is whether the central (federal in our case) government is the ONLY level at which the need can be satisfied. If uniformity of outcome is the desired goal, then one could argue that it should be. But there is nothing supporting the idea that uniformity of outcome or access is somehow the only moral resolution, or that the central government is even capable of doing that or doing it without creating greater problems than it solves.

Manifestly, the federal government is not the most proximate source of resolution when it comes to healthcare. Some individuals can pay their own way. A proper organization of society would insist that they do so. Some can’t pay their own way, but have family members who can do it for them. (like the child of a wealthy person). Some (fewer all the time, but some still) can resort to parish or community resources. Some can enter into health insurance agreements at a cost they can afford. Some are so devoid of resources that they can contribute nothing to their own care and so devoid of more proximate benefactors that the federal government may be the only available resource.

Therefore, it is my position that a federal “single payer” plan violates the principle of subsidiarity. So, in my opinion, does a comprehensive federal takeover of healthcare in any guise. It is my further opinion that it is morally distorted for the federal government to seek such a resolution; first because it isn’t necessary and second because the federal government is a woefully blunt instrument; third because all governments rely on coercion to accomplish their goals; fourth because (and this is the evil subsidiarity is intended to combat) extremely powerful and remote entities tend to impose their entire culture and morality onto individuals.

Subsidiarity would not dictate that no governmental level should relieve the need of those who absolutely can do nothing to help themselves and have no more proximate resource. The Social Encyclicals are very clear that there is no inherent reason to go “up the chain”, but only when it’s absolutely necessary to do so.

Agreed. The Compendium uses similar language in pp #186:
Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do.

Somewhat fearing to be labeled a Francophile again, my purpose in pointing out that even in a socialist-tending society like France, subsidiarity is better served than what the left in the U.S. intends for Americans. There are other alternatives, and potential mixes of alternatives. For whatever reason, nobody seems to want to explore them. It seems to be "all or nothing’ for many on both the right and the left. I don’t think the Church teaches either extreme, either in general or as regards healthcare in particular.

I would only say that you see the French system through rose colored glasses. It is suffuse with national government involvement and it is not without serious problems.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Who asserted that? It’s not government, but the level of government that is at issue. The assertion has been repeatedly made that:
… the most encompassing part of government has the priority, which in the US is the federal government.
That turns subsidiarity on it’s head. The federal government is last, not first and even then it is not to be a permanent situation.

From the Compendium already cited:
188. Various circumstances may make it advisable that the State step in to supply certain functions[401]. One may think, for example, of situations in which it is necessary for the State itself to stimulate the economy because it is impossible for civil society to support initiatives on its own. One may also envision the reality of serious social imbalance or injustice where only the intervention of the public authority can create conditions of greater equality, justice and peace. In light of the principle of subsidiarity, however, this institutional substitution must not continue any longer than is absolutely necessary, since justification for such intervention is found only in the exceptional nature of the situation. In any case, the common good correctly understood, the demands of which will never in any way be contrary to the defence and promotion of the primacy of the person and the way this is expressed in society, must remain the criteria for making decisions concerning the application of the principle of subsidiarity.

Agreed. The Compendium uses similar language in pp #186:
Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do.

I would only say that you see the French system through rose colored glasses. It is suffuse with national government involvement and it is not without serious problems.

I do not think “single payer” is consistent with the principle of subsidiarity either, and I don’t think it is. Nor, in my mind, is Obamacare.

I don’t see any program through rose colored glasses, and certainly not the French system. But as opposed to a “single payer” system, and if the French system was the only alternative to that, yes, i would pick the French system.

One more time. My discussion of the French system was intended to point out that there are lots of approaches to healthcare, and total government control is not the only one, even if there is excessive governmental involvement. Nothing could be more excessive than a total government takeover of healthcare, and almost anything would be better.

I don’t know the details of the French “Department” programs. But let’s say they’re analogous to having healthcare provided for the truly indigent by the U.S. County Health Departments. That’s more consistent with the principle of subsidiarity than federal 'single payer" would be.

It might be passingly interesting to note that I understand Rush Limbaugh has not health insurance at all. He pays his own costs. He’s fabulously wealthy and can do that. Nothing would prevent him from buying health insurance, but I understand he doesn’t out of principle. Even health insurance has a certain “collective” aspect to it. What if he paid less in premiums than his expenses? That would mean somebody who is less wealthy would be paying his way, and he doesn’t want that.

Personally, I would even disqualify wealthy individuals from Medicare, and my rationale would be the principle of subsidiarity. The most proximal capable resource for Rush Limbaugh is Rush Limbaugh. For a person like me, it would be privately purchased health insurance because I can afford to buy it. The principle isn’t just a governmental guideline, it’s also a personal guideline.

 

[gnjsdad]

I am glad the *Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church *is being referenced in this discussion.

Yet, as the Compendium states…

162. The principles of the Church’s social doctrine must be appreciated in their unity, interrelatedness and articulation. This requirement is rooted in the meaning that the Church herself attributes to her social doctrine, as a unified doctrinal corpus that interprets modern social realities in a systematic manner.[344] Examining each of these principles individually must not lead to using them only in part or in an erroneous manner, which would be the case if they were to be invoked in a disjointed and unconnected way with respect to each of the others. A deep theoretical understanding and the actual application of even just one of these social principles clearly shows the reciprocity, complementarities and interconnectedness that is part of their structure. These fundamental principles of the Church’s social doctrine, moreover, represent much more than a permanent legacy of reflection, which is also an essential part of the Christian message, since they indicate the paths possible for building a good, authentic and renewed social life.[345]

I have bolded the parts I believe need to be considered. So far, subsidiarity is the only principle that has been mentioned.

I believe Catholics with a conservative or libertarian ideology are wont to emphasize subsidiarity while ignoring or downplaying other equally vital tenets of the Church’s social doctrine because subsidiarity, considered apart from other principles, can be used as kind of a Catholic fig leaf to cover their desire to cut social safety net programs and health benefits. The Federal government shouldn’t be doing it because it’s the highest level of government and, since there are lower levels of government, then the lower levels should be doing these things. So the argument goes. But are the lower levels of government, at this time and under these circumstances, capable of performing these functions and at the same time living up to Catholic teaching, which holds, as my signature cites, that healthcare, as a basic human right, should be cheap or even free of charge? I wish this question would be addressed, incorporating not just subsidiarity, but the the common good, the universal destination of goods, and solidarity.

 

[1holycatholic]

I have bolded the parts I believe need to be considered. So far, subsidiarity is the only principle that has been mentioned.

Subsidiarity hasn’t been the only thing mentioned. Subsidiarity is the part of Catholic social doctrine that has been ignored or rejected by those who favor federal government involvement (e.g. Obama’s health scheme) in healthcare.

 

[rlg94086]

I am glad the *Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church *is being referenced in this discussion.

Yet, as the Compendium states…

162. The principles of the Church’s social doctrine must be appreciated in their unity, interrelatedness and articulation. This requirement is rooted in the meaning that the Church herself attributes to her social doctrine, as a unified doctrinal corpus that interprets modern social realities in a systematic manner.[344] Examining each of these principles individually must not lead to using them only in part or in an erroneous manner, which would be the case if they were to be invoked in a disjointed and unconnected way with respect to each of the others. A deep theoretical understanding and the actual application of even just one of these social principles clearly shows the reciprocity, complementarities and interconnectedness that is part of their structure. These fundamental principles of the Church’s social doctrine, moreover, represent much more than a permanent legacy of reflection, which is also an essential part of the Christian message, since they indicate the paths possible for building a good, authentic and renewed social life.[345]

I have bolded the parts I believe need to be considered. So far, subsidiarity is the only principle that has been mentioned.

I believe Catholics with a conservative or libertarian ideology are wont to emphasize subsidiarity while ignoring or downplaying other equally vital tenets of the Church’s social doctrine because subsidiarity, considered apart from other principles, can be used as kind of a Catholic fig leaf to cover their desire to cut social safety net programs and health benefits. The Federal government shouldn’t be doing it because it’s the highest level of government and, since there are lower levels of government, then the lower levels should be doing these things. So the argument goes. But are the lower levels of government, at this time and under these circumstances, capable of performing these functions and at the same time living up to Catholic teaching, which holds, as my signature cites, that healthcare, as a basic human right, should be cheap or even free of charge? I wish this question would be addressed, incorporating not just subsidiarity, but the the common good, the universal destination of goods, and solidarity.

Actually, you are missing the point. The reason subsidiarity is being brought up continuously is that IT is being ignored. Yes, the whole teaching must be considered in unity INCLUDING subsidiarity. One Catholic here said he’d be okay with the UN administering a universal health plan.

To answer your question, yes, the states are capable. Why wouldn’t they be? Don’t you believe in self-determination and the democratic process? Don’t you trust people in their own state capable of determining what works best for their people? Or, do you think that only works on a national level?

 

[1holycatholic]

I believe Catholics with a conservative or libertarian ideology are wont to emphasize subsidiarity while ignoring or downplaying other equally vital tenets of the Church’s social doctrine because subsidiarity, considered apart from other principles, can be used as kind of a Catholic fig leaf to cover their desire to cut social safety net programs and health benefits. The Federal government shouldn’t be doing it because it’s the highest level of government and, since there are lower levels of government, then the lower levels should be doing these things. So the argument goes. But are the lower levels of government, at this time and under these circumstances, capable of performing these functions and at the same time living up to Catholic teaching, which holds, as my signature cites, that healthcare, as a basic human right, should be cheap or even free of charge? I wish this question would be addressed, incorporating not just subsidiarity, but the the common good, the universal destination of goods, and solidarity.

Your vile accusations and innuendo are uncharitable and unwelcome.

 

[tm30]

A close friend of mine works for a major health insurer, and is currently part of the executive team in charge of preparing the company for the new exchange system.

To make a long story short, this is going to be an utter financial disaster. He speaks with state governors and their staff in various states, and also with HHS, and the fact of the matter is, the people making the decisions have no clue whatsoever what they’re doing. In some cases, these folks have still not read the bill that became law. He believes it will only take a few big corporations rescinding employee healthcare to provide cover for most firms to do the same.

Right now, there is little or no information coming from HHS on exactly what is required from the exchange members. So, his company (and it’s a big one) is currently “wargaming” what might come out of Washington in terms of compliance objectives, starting up new real time communication networks that pass information back and forth among exchange members as people are enrolled, benchmarks of profitability, etc. They are currently having to plan out multiple scenarios, each carrying widely varying requirements for internal structure, cost, employment needs, contingency planning, etc., due by 2014.

Worse yet, there’s no turning back now. Insurers have poured so much money into this impending change to Obamacare, that the worst thing that could happen now is a total rejection by the Supreme Court. The genie is out of the bottle, and any attempt to put it back will now be much costlier than moving forward. At best, they’ll declare the mandate unconstitutional, but the law, as a whole will survive.

Leave it at this: the government can’t run anything well. As my friend said, look at the V.A. system for a sneak peek of government health care.

 

[Ridgerunner]

A close friend of mine works for a major health insurer, and is currently part of the executive team in charge of preparing the company for the new exchange system.

To make a long story short, this is going to be an utter financial disaster. He speaks with state governors and their staff in various states, and also with HHS, and the fact of the matter is, the people making the decisions have no clue whatsoever what they’re doing. In some cases, these folks have still not read the bill that became law. He believes it will only take a few big corporations rescinding employee healthcare to provide cover for most firms to do the same.

Right now, there is little or no information coming from HHS on exactly what is required from the exchange members. So, his company (and it’s a big one) is currently “wargaming” what might come out of Washington in terms of compliance objectives, starting up new real time communication networks that pass information back and forth among exchange members as people are enrolled, benchmarks of profitability, etc. They are currently having to plan out multiple scenarios, each carrying widely varying requirements for internal structure, cost, employment needs, contingency planning, etc., due by 2014.

Worse yet, there’s no turning back now. Insurers have poured so much money into this impending change to Obamacare, that the worst thing that could happen now is a total rejection by the Supreme Court. The genie is out of the bottle, and any attempt to put it back will now be much costlier than moving forward. At best, they’ll declare the mandate unconstitutional, but the law, as a whole will survive.

Leave it at this: the government can’t run anything well. As my friend said, look at the V.A. system for a sneak peek of government health care.

I’m not sure total rejection of obamacare would be the worst thing that could happen. Going back now would surely be costly in the short term. Going forward will be endlessly costly.

Part of the problem insurers and states have is that Obamacare basically says everybody has to do whatever Kathleen Sebelius decides they must do. Not a really good basis for planning.

 

[gnjsdad]

Your vile accusations and innuendo are uncharitable and unwelcome.

I don’t recall making any accusations; just an observation based on my perusal of posts here and articles in other places.

Is it not true that Catholic conservatives and libertarians have applauded efforts to cut social safety nets wherever they exist, be they on the Federal or State levels? Is that merely a “vile accusation”? Is it not true that subsidiarity is brought into discussions by libertarians an awful lot, while, say, the common good is usually ignored? Perhaps you object to my use of the term “fig leaf”? If so, then I apologize. I’ll just say again that the Church’s social doctrine needs to be studied in its entirety.

As to the common good, here is what the Compendium says…

**164. **The principle of the common good, to which every aspect of social life must be related if it is to attain its fullest meaning, stems from the dignity, unity and equality of all people. According to its primary and broadly accepted sense, the common good indicates “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfilment more fully and more easily”.[346]

The common good does not consist in the simple sum of the particular goods of each subject of a social entity. Belonging to everyone and to each person, it is and remains “common”, because it is indivisible and because only together is it possible to attain it, increase it and safeguard its effectiveness, with regard also to the future.

And also…

**166. **The demands of the common good are dependent on the social conditions of each historical period and are strictly connected to respect for and the integral promotion of the person and his fundamental rights[349]. These demands concern above all the commitment to peace, the organization of the State’s powers, a sound juridical system, the protection of the environment, and the provision of essential services to all, some of which are at the same time human rights: food, housing, work, education and access to culture, transportation, basic health care, the freedom of communication and expression, and the protection of religious freedom[350]. Nor must one forget the contribution that every nation is required in duty to make towards a true worldwide cooperation for the common good of the whole of humanity and for future generations also[351].

**167. **The common good therefore involves all members of society, no one is exempt from cooperating, according to each one’s possibilities, in attaining it and developing it[352]. The common good must be served in its fullness, not according to reductionist visions that are subordinated by certain people to their advantages; own rather it is to be based on a logic that leads to the assumption of greater responsibility. The common good corresponds to the highest of human instincts[353], but it is a good that is very difficult to attain because it requires the constant ability and effort to seek the good of others as though it were one’s own good.

Note that access to basic healthcare is a fundamental human right under the principle of the common good, because good health is essential to the well being of each person and all persons.

The way I see it, the current healthcare system falls short of living up to the common good in that access to it is restricted according to one’s ability to pay. Even “Obamacare” falls short, because it still requires one to buy insurance (expensive in a for-profit system!) but at least it takes some steps to alleviate some of the more obvious faults in the current system.