Affordable Health Care is a Christian Act

[JimG]

At what point in a nation’s development does affordable health care become a right? Surely not at the very start. At least it’s not written into our Constitution as a right. Should it be enshrined as a right as soon as possible? Should it become a right once there are sufficient tax revenues to form a surplus to use for health care?

How much health care is included in this right? If the government begins to run deficits, should the right then be abrogated on the grounds of unaffordability?

Should health care workers wages be artificially depressed in order to ensure that health care will remain affordable? Should health care workers be drafted, like the military, in order to provide a needed service at minimal pay?

If the right merely consists in having the government pay for health care for all, out of tax revenue, then it is not so much a right as a government insurance pool.

It must also be kept in mind that merely having insurance, whether government or private, inevitably raises prices.

The surest way to reduce health care costs would be to prohibit health insurance. Prices would fall.

 

[kingofseoul]

Whats preventing you from finding another provider and plan?

Nothing. Mine is the cheapest I can afford and it’s $357/month. I have a daughter with a medical condition that requires absolutely no treatment. But because it is a “condition”, the insurance companies triple my insurance rate. I shouldn’t complain, I guess. Before the Affordable Care Act, they used to deny coverage.

I’ve shopped left and right for affordable health insurance. This was the best deal I could find! Most people I know have never bought private insurance. I’ve done it all HSAs, flex spending accounts…I always end up spending a lot of money on insurance that when I run the numbers, it’s cheaper to cancel it and pay out of pocket. Trust me, it’s not easy doing a cost/benefit analysis every time you get sick.

And I have a hard time playing that game with my daughter’s health. Maybe if it were just me, I’d just cancel. But it’s not, so…

I run my own business with few employees, so group insurance is out. My only other option is to close my business and find a job that provides health insurance. I’m actually looking into doing that right now.

 

[Sherry_G]

I think that people here are quite confused. Health care is not a right, as Christians we are to suffer in order to become holier. As a Christian I have moral obligations toward others but that does not create rights or entitlements for other people.

:yyeess:

The govt does a terrible job of managing money, or haven’t you noticed that there is NO BUDGET, spending is out of control and the only thing the POTUS can think of is taking over more and more of the private sector. IF Obamacare ever gets off the ground, do you think people will feel better aboaut dying while waiting for their medical procedures while being buried under mountains of red tape and beurocracy?

I agree that those without health care could be helped but WHY drag the entire country into it? Can you come up with a plausible reason why EVERYONE must be in the govt healthcare system? We are broke, thanks to the good folks in DC. Already broke. BEFORE the next govt mandated fiasco even gets out of the gate.

 

[mwok]

What if the current Admin. put into law that EVERY American MUST eat bacon and eggs for breakfast. You could eat turkey or pork bacon, but you had to eat bacon. You could prepare your eggs however you wanted, fresh or powdered, but it had to be an egg or product of an egg. Without worrying about how the gov’t knows that you did eat b&e for breakfast, how would you feel about such a law?

 

[severus68]

Hmm well then food, water, clothing, and shelter would all be rights too would they not? Those would all come before healthcare at least in my book.

If a person is unable to feed, clothe and shelter himself because of disability whether of mind, body or otherwise, then yes, it is a basic human right for him to be fed etc. Illlness is a disability and healthcare is a basic right owed to those who cannot afford it.

 

[Jerry_Miah]

At what point in a nation’s development does affordable health care become a right? Surely not at the very start. At least it’s not written into our Constitution as a right. Should it be enshrined as a right as soon as possible? Should it become a right once there are sufficient tax revenues to form a surplus to use for health care?

How much health care is included in this right? If the government begins to run deficits, should the right then be abrogated on the grounds of unaffordability?

Should health care workers wages be artificially depressed in order to ensure that health care will remain affordable? Should health care workers be drafted, like the military, in order to provide a needed service at minimal pay?

If the right merely consists in having the government pay for health care for all, out of tax revenue, then it is not so much a right as a government insurance pool.

No one said health care is a “right” (although access to health care definitely would fall under the Constitutional right to “pursuit of happiness” and “promote the general welfare” I think getting into a Constitutional argument isn’t helpful here.)

The lack of access to health care is, instead, a national crisis, a national disgrace. It is also just a standard thing that the people of any civilized country eventually creates for themselves. I already said it in the OP: If 45,000 people were to die in a natural disaster, we would declare a state of emergency, Catholic relief services would swing into action and we would work around the clock to help the survivors and families and to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again. But when 45,000 die every year from our lack of a decent health care system, we look the other way. Obama is finally addressing this issue.

About all these questions about health care worker wages, about the government going “bankrupt” or whatever, I would simply point out that countries with much less wealth manage to have a national health care system without much problem. Germany, for one example, has a very good national health care system, and the government has enough money left over to bail out other countries. Don’t you think the richest country in the world, and one that considers itself the greatest in the world, could manage to do the same?

 

[Nate13]

If a person is unable to feed, clothe and shelter himself because of disability whether of mind, body or otherwise, then yes, it is a basic human right for him to be fed etc. Illlness is a disability and healthcare is a basic right owed to those who cannot afford it.

The problem I have when you say everyone has a “right” to healthcare is that when you say that you really mean we have a right to a federal government run healthcare insurance. If we are talking about food though, then the solution is food stamps or if we are talking about general well being of people in affording somewhere to live and basic amenities we are talking about Welfare.

Why not create similar programs to handle those who don’t have health insurance? No one thought we needed to bring everyone under the thumb of the government to get food to those who needed it, or to get welfare checks to people did they? I have a problem with people who lie to themselves saying that the only way to get health insurance to those who don’t have it is to enforce a federal government run healthcare system on the country and take control of everyone’s health insurance plans. If Sebelius can dictate that every health insurance policy whether public or private has to completely cover the pill and sterilizations, the government has control of every policy whether its considered private or not.

 

[mwok]

Argue while we can, I heard that someone is considering making it illegal to protest in the presence of a gov’t official(the excuse being to prevent something like the tragic shooting on Gifford from happening again).

Look up H.R. 347, the “Trespass Bill”

 

[JimG]

No one said health care is a “right” (although access to health care definitely would fall under the Constitutional right to “pursuit of happiness” and “promote the general welfare” I think getting into a Constitutional argument isn’t helpful here.)

The lack of access to health care is, instead, a national crisis, a national disgrace. It is also just a standard thing that the people of any civilized country eventually creates for themselves. I already said it in the OP: If 45,000 people were to die in a natural disaster, we would declare a state of emergency, Catholic relief services would swing into action and we would work around the clock to help the survivors and families and to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again. But when 45,000 die every year from our lack of a decent health care system, we look the other way. Obama is finally addressing this issue.

About all these questions about health care worker wages, about the government going “bankrupt” or whatever, I would simply point out that countries with much less wealth manage to have a national health care system without much problem. Germany, for one example, has a very good national health care system, and the government has enough money left over to bail out other countries. Don’t you think the richest country in the world, and one that considers itself the greatest in the world, could manage to do the same?

Germany has a population of about 82 million, compared to 300 million in the U.S., so yes, their program may be more manageable. The U.S. has a current debt of about 15 Trillion, and spends each day about 4 Billion more than it takes in. There are unfunded liabilities for Medicare and Social Security.

If we had a growing GDP and a growing population, and a growing workforce, the gap might be able to be closed, but we have a shrinking workforce of young people, a growing segment of retirees–Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid recipients, and a growing demographic imbalance.

The fact is, taxpayers will have to support a growing number of non-taxpayers, and the system is simply not sustainable.

If anyone has a solution, other than printing money or confiscatory taxation, I would like to know.

I would like for everyone to have medical care too. But that is not the most pressing problem for nation. The most pressing problem, by far, is the increasing debt crisis, which grows daily toward the tipping point. It will not be pretty when we drive over the cliff.

 

[severus68]

The problem I have when you say everyone has a “right” to healthcare is that when you say that you really mean we have a right to a federal government run healthcare insurance. If we are talking about food though, then the solution is food stamps or if we are talking about general well being of people in affording somewhere to live and basic amenities we are talking about Welfare.

Why not create similar programs to handle those who don’t have health insurance? No one thought we needed to bring everyone under the thumb of the government to get food to those who needed it, or to get welfare checks to people did they? I have a problem with people who lie to themselves saying that the only way to get health insurance to those who don’t have it is to enforce a federal government run healthcare system on the country and take control of everyone’s health insurance plans. If Sebelius can dictate that every health insurance policy whether public or private has to completely cover the pill and sterilizations, the government has control of every policy whether its considered private or not.

I was not referring to specifics as I am not from the US. Yes, I suppose it would be a federal government run scheme. No, basic rights are not about charity, welfare should not be about charity.

The scheme and the governing law could be drafted to keep out non health treatment. Anyway, my taxes pay for non essential defence, for meat subsidies. I am a pacifist and I am a vegetarian. I live with it.

 

[Nate13]

I was not referring to specifics as I am not from the US. Yes, I suppose it would be a federal government run scheme. No, basic rights are not about charity, welfare should not be about charity.

The scheme and the governing law could be drafted to keep out non health treatment. Anyway, my taxes pay for non essential defence, for meat subsidies. I am a pacifist and I am a vegetarian. I live with it.

You should understand that my opposition is not for paying for a program to give health insurance to those you need it, but rather to who runs the program and makes all the decisions.

Also does charity exist in your country anymore?

2 Thessalonians 3:10 (New International Version)
Show resources
2 Thessalonians 3:10

New International Version (NIV)
10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

This would seem to infer that someone who can work and chooses not to does not have a right to eat…of course being charitable we would feed him, but it seems apparent Paul did not consider such a person to have a right to eat.

 

[severus68]

You should understand that my opposition is not for paying for a program to give health insurance to those you need it, but rather to who runs the program and makes all the decisions.

Also does charity exist in your country anymore?

This would seem to infer that someone who can work and chooses not to does not have a right to eat…of course being charitable we would feed him, but it seems apparent Paul did not consider such a person to have a right to eat.

My country?

Anyway, if you re-read my posts, I was not advocating that. Yes, if we feed someone who chooses not to work and feed himself, that is being very charitable. It is also a fact that some people abuse such systems.
I was advocating for the disenfranchised - the disabled, the ill, children etc.

 

[Jerry_Miah]

Germany has a population of about 82 million, compared to 300 million in the U.S., so yes, their program may be more manageable. The U.S. has a current debt of about 15 Trillion, and spends each day about 4 Billion more than it takes in. There are unfunded liabilities for Medicare and Social Security.

If we had a growing GDP and a growing population, and a growing workforce, the gap might be able to be closed, but we have a shrinking workforce of young people, a growing segment of retirees–Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid recipients, and a growing demographic imbalance.

The fact is, taxpayers will have to support a growing number of non-taxpayers, and the system is simply not sustainable.

If anyone has a solution, other than printing money or confiscatory taxation, I would like to know.

I would like for everyone to have medical care too. But that is not the most pressing problem for nation. The most pressing problem, by far, is the increasing debt crisis, which grows daily toward the tipping point. It will not be pretty when we drive over the cliff.

Actually, Obama’s health care reform will lower the budget deficit. Did you know that?

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will reduce the federal deficit by $143 billion over the 10-year period from 2010 to 2019. The savings potential increases substantially in the following decade, cutting the deficit by an estimated $1.2 trillion for 2020 to 2029.

www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/11/14/16-ways-to-cut-the-deficit/save-money-save-the-health-care-law

 

[JimG]

When Medicare began in 1965, the estimate was that Part A, would cost *$9 billion *per yr by 1990.
Actual Part A spending in 1990: $67 billion.

In 1967, the government estimated that total Medicare spending by 1990 would be $12 billion.
Actual spending in 1990: $110 billion.

In 1987, Congress estimated Medicaid hospital spending would cost less than *$1 billion *in 1992.
Actual spending in 1992: $17 billion.

Thus my skepticism.

By 2019 the CBO estimates the national debt will be $17.2 trillion, vs $15.5 trillion today.
if we make it that long before a debt crisis hits.

I ask this: is it a Christian act to bankrupt the nation?

 

[Jerry_Miah]

When Medicare began in 1965, the estimate was that Part A, would cost *$9 billion *per yr by 1990.
Actual Part A spending in 1990: $67 billion.

In 1967, the government estimated that total Medicare spending by 1990 would be $12 billion.
Actual spending in 1990: $110 billion.

In 1987, Congress estimated Medicaid hospital spending would cost less than *$1 billion *in 1992.
Actual spending in 1992: $17 billion.

Thus my skepticism.

By 2019 the CBO estimates the national debt will be $17.2 trillion, vs $15.5 trillion today.
if we make it that long before a debt crisis hits.

I ask this: is it a Christian act to bankrupt the nation?

You should cite your sources, otherwise these are just free-floating numbers. However a long tangent analyzing each and every government program would be pointless. Suffice to say I believe there are workable economic fixes to our problems, and I think the view that all these programs are a disaster is just propaganda by free-market extremists who would privatize anything they could make a quick buck on. They are the same ones who push the absurdity that the USA is “bankrupt”. In fact the USA is the wealthiest nation in the world. Ensuring access to healthcare is not going to “bankrupt the nation.” As I have said, many other countries do it without bankrupting themselves. Saying Germany is smaller than the USA is irrelevant. It is one working model among many that could be extrapolated to a larger scale.

The main thing between us and health care access for all is greed, which I have on good authority is the root of all evil.

 

[Cristiano]

…The main thing between us and health care access for all is greed, which I have on good authority is the root of all evil.

That is the same greed that is presently driving entitlements at every level. If people were not greedy we would have better basic and fundamental public programs with tax reductions as a plus.

 

[JimG]

You should cite your sources, otherwise these are just free-floating numbers. However a long tangent analyzing each and every government program would be pointless. Suffice to say I believe there are workable economic fixes to our problems, and I think the view that all these programs are a disaster is just propaganda by free-market extremists who would privatize anything they could make a quick buck on. They are the same ones who push the absurdity that the USA is “bankrupt”. In fact the USA is the wealthiest nation in the world. Ensuring access to healthcare is not going to “bankrupt the nation.” As I have said, many other countries do it without bankrupting themselves. Saying Germany is smaller than the USA is irrelevant. It is one working model among many that could be extrapolated to a larger scale.

The main thing between us and health care access for all is greed, which I have on good authority is the root of all evil.

Here’s a source for the cost underestimates:
blog.heritage.org/2009/08/04/health-care-reform-cost-estimates-what-is-the-track-record/

Here’s another:
washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/18/health-programs-have-history-of-cost-overruns/print/

But the fact of benefit programs vastly exceeding estimates is not surprising. It has a long history.

The U.S.government cannot even operate day to day without borrowing–$5 billion per day just to keep paying the bills. Does anyone really think that is sustainable? And does demanding something for nothing qualify as greed? Do AARP members demanding no changes whatever to an unsustainable Medicare system qualify as greed?

And it is not just me saying that the debt crisis is the most serious crisis we have. The only disagreement is on how soon we should begin to try to fix it. Progressives say, we need to spend more now to stimulate the economy, and after the economy is growing again, then work on the deficit. Conservatives say, fixing the problem can’t wait.

But most in Congress are perfectly willing to put off action. There’s no votes in reducing the debt or in reducing spending.

How much longer do you think the nation can continue to spend that much more than it takes in? Some might say, “forever—just keep printing money.” But that cure is equally as bad as bankruptcy.

Ben Bernanke warned Congress 2 years ago that the U.S.'s long term debt situation was unsustainable. It’s worse now. The Bowles-Simpson commission presented a bipartisan plan for debt reduction. Everybody ignored it.

Economist Bill Helming forecasts another depression. But he’s been wrong before. Let’s hope he is wrong again.

housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=138839

columbiamissourian.com/stories/2010/03/13/olathe-economist-predicts-depression-looming/

Some of us old codgers may not live long enough to see the worst of the aftermath of this debt bubble. But those who deliberately continue to inflate it till it bursts are doing the next generation no service. Everyone will end up poorer.

 

[LittleFlower378]

“Saying Germany is smaller than the USA is irrelevant.”

I dont think that is irrelevant at all but another important factor.

Also, spending I dont believe is the answer. Alot of people say we should stimulate the economy by spending but who are they talking to? People that are already in debt shouldnt spend to get into more debt. People spend more (and probably give more) when they are debt free and can save for a purchase, retirement or for their kids, etc.

On another note, the president may have done a few good things but I think he is so far gone on some things, he makes me nervous. I can see him protecting laws and programs that are already in place, but he has gone so far to change laws and programs that are GOOD. He knocked out the Defense of Marraige Act, cut funding for abstinance programs and lifted restrictions on funding of embryonic stem cell research just to name a few. I understand that in a pluralistic society all laws may not intertwine with our own relgious beliefs. But Yeeeesh…I am not confused I am just like whoooahhhh

 

[ACCT]

One thing that is often overlooked in this controversy is that the intent of President Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act is fix one of the biggest disgraces of the USA, namely that we are the last industrialized country without a national health care system, and this results in an incalculable amount of suffering, death and hardship for Americans.

Let’s talk about the immoral situation that has been the USA without a decent health care system: The 45,000 people dying in the USA for lack of adequate health care. The 62% of bankruptcies resulting from family medical costs, the 50% (over half a million homes) of foreclosures that came from medical costs. If such death and hardship were caused by a natural disaster or enemy attack, it would be an unparalleled catastrophe, but it’s been happening every year. Think about how much suffering comes from just one tragic death and then multiply it by 45,000, think about thousands of homeless families, and then you’ll realize that, in trying to finally find a solution to this mess, Obama is doing a very Christian and heroic thing.

We live in a pluralistic democracy which means we all pay taxes for things we don’t want to necessarily support – for the death penalty, for ongoing war, for weapons of mass destruction – but that’s the price we pay for living in this kind of society. We have to make the same (and actually minor) compromises to correct this moral evil of lack of health care access. Whether with the progressive Single Payer plan or this conservative solution of business/individual mandated health insurance, various groups paying indirectly for something they would rather not is just a reality of life, and one they should welcome in order to right the moral evil of lack of health care access.

I have international clients in Spain (AKA 70% Catholic Spain) and when I tell them about this controversy they think I am kidding. They would never dream of having a Catholic mandates in their national health care system.

So consider the fact that finally creating some kind of system for universal health care access – a concept long urged by US Council of Catholic Bishops – is in itself a humane act that would certainly qualify as Christian in terms of its goal of relieving the human suffering on a catastrophic scale that is going on in this country. Support the efforts in our country to correct this moral wrong.

Your assumptions are false. We are not entitled to anything. We are to look to God and our church for our needs, NOT the government. Governments can steal just like an individual.

 

[Wiljo2050]

One thing that is often overlooked in this controversy is that the intent of President Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act is fix one of the biggest disgraces of the USA, namely that we are the last industrialized country without a national health care system, and this results in an incalculable amount of suffering, death and hardship for Americans.

Let’s talk about the immoral situation that has been the USA without a decent health care system: The 45,000 people dying in the USA for lack of adequate health care. The 62% of bankruptcies resulting from family medical costs, the 50% (over half a million homes) of foreclosures that came from medical costs. If such death and hardship were caused by a natural disaster or enemy attack, it would be an unparalleled catastrophe, but it’s been happening every year. Think about how much suffering comes from just one tragic death and then multiply it by 45,000, think about thousands of homeless families, and then you’ll realize that, in trying to finally find a solution to this mess, Obama is doing a very Christian and heroic thing.

We live in a pluralistic democracy which means we all pay taxes for things we don’t want to necessarily support – for the death penalty, for ongoing war, for weapons of mass destruction – but that’s the price we pay for living in this kind of society. We have to make the same (and actually minor) compromises to correct this moral evil of lack of health care access. Whether with the progressive Single Payer plan or this conservative solution of business/individual mandated health insurance, various groups paying indirectly for something they would rather not is just a reality of life, and one they should welcome in order to right the moral evil of lack of health care access.

I have international clients in Spain (AKA 70% Catholic Spain) and when I tell them about this controversy they think I am kidding. They would never dream of having a Catholic mandates in their national health care system.

So consider the fact that finally creating some kind of system for universal health care access – a concept long urged by US Council of Catholic Bishops – is in itself a humane act that would certainly qualify as Christian in terms of its goal of relieving the human suffering on a catastrophic scale that is going on in this country. Support the efforts in our country to correct this moral wrong.