Affordable Health Care is a Christian Act

[Nate13]

??? Are you suggesting that people with pre-existing conditions shouldn’t have health insurance, that only healthy people should? I have never been without health insurance in my entire life, and it is a true blessing. When I was born in 1953, 12 weeks premature, my parents had no health insurance. They “paid me off” for 6 years. My parents taught us that we were to have health insurance every day of our lives. The 6 months my daughter was without insurance were horrible. What would have happened if she had needed another emergency cardiac surgery?

When people who don’t have health coverage end up in the ER or having huge procedures completed, who pays? You and I pay in higher premiums. One CT scan is about $1200 now - yes, the prices are outrageous. I certainly don’t believe in the mandate, but how do we control those who just show up and expect to be treated without paying? In California if you don’t have proof of car insurance, you are not allowed to register your car or drive on the roads. I still have to carry “uninsured motorist” coverage in my policy. There must be some middle ground that can be found that people can accept.

You have a State-run public option that picks up people with preexisting conditions and we stop tying health insurance to employment. Let everyone purchase the plan they want from the private market personally.

 

[sedonaman]

??? Are you suggesting that people with pre-existing conditions shouldn’t have health insurance, that only healthy people should? …

How did you leap to that conclusion? I’m merely looking at it from the insurance companies’ point of view. Why can’t you see that the reason health insurance companies don’t cover pre-existing conditions is the same reason that auto insurers don’t cover pre-existing accidents, i.e., people would wait until they had a loss before buying insurance? Then they would pay for the insurance only until they got well, and then cancel it. And why not? It’s human nature to want to pay as little as possible for anything, and I didn’t invent human nature. Capisce?

 

[kozlosap]

Gottcha!

 

[Arandur]

We already have a state-run health insurance mandate that everyone pays into and that is available to anyone who has need. It’s called Medicaid. It just needs reform.

We have enough trouble getting that system right and keeping it solvent. How would any broader system be any better?

I do see a role for taxes, like the Medicaid portion of FICA, to essentially provide high-deductible health insurance for any individual who does not have their own, other form of insurance.

One of the things I’m quite afraid of is the huge cost INCREASES Obamacare is projected to cause, by the CBO, and the elimination of consumer choices to reduce cost. For instance, the CBO estimates that by 2016, the annual cost to me, a 30yo healthy male, would average $5800, or about $500 per month, under Obamacare.

With only a 3% increase in premiums from last year, my current insurance plan–which I buy and provide for my family entirely myself, with no employer assistance (I’m self-employed) is about $300 a month. For my entire family–me, my wife, and my 15 month old son. My coverage is very good: $1000 individual deductible, 70/30 coinsurance, 5 doctor visit copays at $30, wellness visits at no copay (including all children’s wellness visits), medium-tier prescription drug coverage, premium reduction every year it’s not used (down to 50%). The only things it doesn’t cover are maternity, mental health, and alternative medicine (chiropracty, acupuncture, etc).

So I have what I consider an awesome plan. The monthly premium costs LESS than comparable plans that employers have offered me in the past (years ago and prospective employers now). But under Obamacare, the CBO tells me that our costs will likely go up to $1500 PER MONTH to cover 3 individuals. That’s an increase of 500%. That’s more than my mortgage.

How is that just? I am fortunate enough to be making good money right now, but only recently I have been on exceptionally hard times. If I fall into that situation again under Obamacare I will have no insurance except to beg the bureaucrats to let me have some medical care that they approve, and that they’ve soaked other people for.

The current system is far less broken than that.

 

[sedonaman]

We already have a state-run health insurance mandate that everyone pays into and that is available to anyone who has need. It’s called Medicaid. It just needs reform.

Not only that, but øbama said he could pay for his plan by reducing fraud, waste, and abuse. So why did he need legislation to do that? What has he done to reduce them since passage of his bill? Nada; zero; zip; zilch.

We have enough trouble getting that system right and keeping it solvent. How would any broader system be any better?

It will be better for the armies of bureaucrats that will be needed to administer it.

… But under Obamacare, the CBO tells me that our costs will likely go up to $1500 PER MONTH to cover 3 individuals. That’s an increase of 500%. That’s more than my mortgage.

How is that just? I am fortunate enough to be making good money right now, but only recently I have been on exceptionally hard times. If I fall into that situation again under Obamacare I will have no insurance except to beg the bureaucrats to let me have some medical care that they approve, and that they’ve soaked other people for.

The current system is far less broken than that.

Face it. Under øbamacare, if you aren’t a female who wants an abortion, you are sunk. Your only role is to pay for it.

 

[system]

You liberal Catholics are really annoying. That is if you are really Catholic. The only ones answering these should be priests.

 

[kozlosap]

You liberal Catholics are really annoying. That is if you are really Catholic. The only ones answering these should be priests.

WOW! A newbie that is “judging” on their first post!!! Welcome and maybe cool down a bit!

 

[aragonjohn1]

If it was monks and hermits in the 400s careing for the sick and dying yes it is.

 

[gtrenewed]

How did you leap to that conclusion? I’m merely looking at it from the insurance companies’ point of view. Why can’t you see that the reason health insurance companies don’t cover pre-existing conditions is the same reason that auto insurers don’t cover pre-existing accidents, i.e., people would wait until they had a loss before buying insurance? Then they would pay for the insurance only until they got well, and then cancel it. And why not? It’s human nature to want to pay as little as possible for anything, and I didn’t invent human nature. Capisce?

What a very nieve and narrow understanding of the problem. You need to go to confession when you start thinking like an insurance company. Don’t blame the human nature of the consumers but the human nature of those in the health care system.

How about a couple married at 18 who bought their own insurance because children were likely to come from the union. Then for the next 35 years were covered by employer plans until the lay offs came and they could not afford to keep the high priced coverage, high because of their age and then came the health issues and when they could buy coverage they were denied due to pre-existing conditions.

So for some 35 years they had insurance but rarely used it. So for years our premiums covered others sickness and insurance company profits and when it came our turn to collect we were shut out.

If you think our health care system isn’t broken, you are blind to the horrors that millions have experienced.

 

[Viki63]

If you think our health care system isn’t broken, you are blind to the horrors that millions have experienced.

Absolutely. Only the people who haven’t really needed health care think our system is all right.

 

[Ender]

If you think our health care system isn’t broken, you are blind to the horrors that millions have experienced.

A very passionate statement but also one that is completely irrelevant to any of the questions involved here. Everyone would like to see our health care system improved; the choice is not between fixing it and ignoring it. The debates are about whether Obamacare will make it better or worse and whether we have a Christian duty to support it. Given there is every reason to believe it will make life worse instead of better we surely have no moral obligation to accept it. There is in fact no moral position on health care. There are moral and immoral reasons for choosing one proposal over another but (reasonable) proposals themselves have no moral content. One is not morally preferable to another.

Ender

 

[sedonaman]

What a very nieve and narrow understanding of the problem. You need to go to confession when you start thinking like an insurance company. Don’t blame the human nature of the consumers but the human nature of those in the health care system.

How about a couple married at 18 who bought their own insurance because children were likely to come from the union. Then for the next 35 years were covered by employer plans until the lay offs came and they could not afford to keep the high priced coverage, high because of their age and then came the health issues and when they could buy coverage they were denied due to pre-existing conditions.

So for some 35 years they had insurance but rarely used it. So for years our premiums covered others sickness and insurance company profits and when it came our turn to collect we were shut out.

If you think our health care system isn’t broken, you are blind to the horrors that millions have experienced.

Who are you to decide what sin is? God?

I shouldn’t blame human nature? One of the troubles with liberals like yourself is that they think human nature is infinitely malleable. It is not. It’s OK to say don’t blame human nature, but wishing it out of existence doesn’t make it go away. Another problem with liberals: you never consider the unintended consequences of a government act. You just feel good about yourself for having stuck it to the “evil” insurance companies.

You are the one who is naïve if you think that the government can just mandate prices and markets. The way I see it, the question is not some having health insurance versus everyone having it, but some having it versus none having it, for no one will have it if the companies are driven out of business. The mandate that they must cover “children” up to age 26, an extra four years, is just the beginning. It sounds real Christian and charitable to support that, but who is going to pay for it? You? Medical providers don’t work for free, and we would like to have more coverage without the rising costs that come with it, but only with medical care is such wishful thinking taken seriously, with government regarded as a sort of fairy godmother who will give us the benefits without the costs. The fact is neither political rhetoric, kumbayah, nor government bureaucracies will make those costs go away.

Insurance companies can’t absorb the extra costs because what they charge now is based on their current cost of doing business without the added coverage. When they raise their premiums, they will once again be labeled “evil” because fewer will be able to afford it. This is exactly the opposite your “Christian” goal. When they are all finally out of business and no one has coverage, you will blame them again for the evil of going out of business, and you will never have to answer for what you have done.

If you think it is possible for a company to do what you are asking, I challenge you and others of like mind to join together, form a health insurance company, and sell policies that cover pre-existing conditions. Let me know so I can buy a policy when I need it and cancel once I’m well.

 

[Corki]

What a very nieve and narrow understanding of the problem. You need to go to confession when you start thinking like an insurance company. Don’t blame the human nature of the consumers but the human nature of those in the health care system.

If you don’t look at the problem from all sides, INCLUDING THE SIDE OF THE INSURANCE COMPANIES, you will never be able to create a workable solution. Everyone likes to paint the insurance companies as demons but they are businessmen. If you create a system where the insurance companies are hit with an overwhelmingly disproportionate amount of risk and expense, you will have a failed system.

If you think our health care system isn’t broken, you are blind to the horrors that millions have experienced.

I don’t think there is anyone who believes that the current system is perfect. But it works and works well for most people who participate. The goal should be to expand that working model to include more, if not all, Americans. The current plan provides good to excellent care for the vast majority of Americans. The proposed plan would provide mediocre care to almost all Americans while the uber rich would be the only ones with access to excellent care. How is that an improvement?

 

[ACCT]

One of the functions of prices is the transmission of information. Prices coordinate the activities between buyers and sellers. Prices that provide information also provide an incentive to act on that information. If goods are not excludable, there is a break in the linkage between costs and benefits. Prices will not provide accurate information and incentives.

An example that comes to mind is the health care industry. We all buy health insurance. Our medical insurance pays for most of our health costs. Once I pay for my medical insurance and deductible (excludable good), the insurance pays for the balance of my medical care (non-excludable good). We no longer pay the doctor directly. Do I care what the Doctor charges as long as my insurance pays? I have no incentive to shop for the lowest price. Additionally, the doctor has no incentive to lower his fees.

 

[Humble_Pie]

You know what I find interesting? This subject is a great example of how people allow their politics to influence their religious beliefs, instead of the other way around.

Liberals love to cite the USCCB’s declarations about universal health care; conservatives conveniently ignore it. Liberals quote Jesus’s statements about caring for the sick and poor (Matt 25, etc), and conservatives continue to bob and weave.

Similarly, conservatives point out the Church’s consistent teachings on socialism, and liberals conveniently ignore it. They also point out Paul’s statements in 2 Corinthians 9 and elsewhere about giving under compulsion, and liberals excuse it away.

It’s all very confusing, and frankly I don’t know what I believe anymore.

I will say however, I’d love to hear peoples alternative suggestions, instead of just criticizing the current system.

 

[Balian]

Finding a way to provide poor people with access to quality health care is of course a proper Christian response. But to say that the Affordable Health Care Act is a Christian Act is simply not true. The poor get greater access to Medicaid which while better than nothing I suppose is not the health care most people in the U.S. would want for their families. In addition, anyone who paid even the slightest attention to the Supreme Court arguments learned that the supporters of the Act who supposedly have so much concern for the poor were in fact most concerned about keeping the costs of providing health care for poor people from being transferred to Americans who can afford to pay for health care. Not the most Christian perspective if you ask me.

The Affordable Health Care Act was not a good first step to universal access to quality health care. It is a horrible law that does not address the issue directly at all. With the law, according to Annals of Family Medicine, health insurance will become increasingly unaffordable for not only the poor but for middle class families as well. The organization projects that by 2037, the annual cost of insurance premiums will equal the entire annual income for most Americans. Read about it at the following link.

annfammed.org/content/10/2/156.full

It is useful to actually read the law and learn what is in it before just accepting what one’s favored politicians have to say about it. As long as we have a health system that allows corporations to make obscene profits on the backs of the sick, we will continue to have the system where only those who can afford to pay for it will get access to quality care in this country. Far beyond the HHS mandate provision and the individual mandate, the Affordable Health Care Act like any piece of partisan legislation enacted into law by one political persuasion that benefited from temporary control of two branches of government is horribly flawed. There is nothing Christian about the law at all.

 

[Hopey]

Humble Pie, the solution to our Medical Reform/AHA is one where people of good will can disagree on. The USCCB has been criticized, regarding this subject, with their inability to reconcile the current law with our Subsidiarity teaching - keep things as local and small as possible to ensure freedom, etc.
Regarding disagreeing with the Bishops, this too has been where they have been criticized before in that they are loosing the strength of their voice by making announcements on everything so the common Catholic has a hard time distinguishing when they make a moral statement that is absolute - especially regarding ABC/abortion.
Frankly, I would like to see more teaching and less talking. One good thing they can offer is the ability to lobby which the ordinary middle class person doesn’t have the funds to do. So they can generate response/activity in that way.
The current law will cripple us all.
I have been giving this more thought: how to replace Obamacare. Reform is needed, but what was passed, which is scarey that the average person and most Congressman has NOT read - gives too much power to the HHS president for starters. If you don’t know what is in it, how will you know they aren’t pulling something over on you or allowing the insurance companies to rape people at 9.5% cap of THEIR income?! Although the tax is meant for the insurance companies, it is assumed by the Senate finance committee they, insurance companies, will make it up in premiums. Those are not just solutions.
nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/how-to-replace-obamacare

 

[Corki]

You know what I find interesting? This subject is a great example of how people allow their politics to influence their religious beliefs, instead of the other way around.

Liberals love to cite the USCCB’s declarations about universal health care; conservatives conveniently ignore it. Liberals quote Jesus’s statements about caring for the sick and poor (Matt 25, etc), and conservatives continue to bob and weave.

Similarly, conservatives point out the Church’s consistent teachings on socialism, and liberals conveniently ignore it. They also point out Paul’s statements in 2 Corinthians 9 and elsewhere about giving under compulsion, and liberals excuse it away.

It’s all very confusing, and frankly I don’t know what I believe anymore.

I will say however, I’d love to hear peoples alternative suggestions, instead of just criticizing the current system.

I hope I don’t fall into either one of those extremes. I’ve posted these before but here are my suggestions to begin with:

1. expand the time period for insurance portability. This protects people with a preexisting condition who may have paid into the system for years but have a gap in coverage due to disabilty or unemployment. But it also keeps people from just jumping into an insurance pool when they need the coverage.
2. Expand the CHIP program (or whatever it’s called in your state).
3. Require that companies with health insurance for full time employees offer coverage for part time employees as well. They don’t have to pay for it but let those employees into the group plan.
4. Expand the tax deductable flexible spending plan limits. These plans engourage people to make prudent decisions on health care expenses.
5. Allow an expanded list of who can be claimed as dependents - older parents, grown children, etc. Even if you charge extra for some classes of coverage, having the option available will cover a lot of those uninsured.
6. Have a penalty for employees who are offered a plan that the company pays at least 50% of the premium but who turn down coverage. Use this money for emergency coverage for the uninsured similar to uninsured motorist pools for car insurance. This wouldn’t include employees who are covered on another plan such as a spouse’s plan.
7. Require that all companies with employee health coverage offer coverage for family members too. They don’t have to pay for it, or could pay at a lower percentage, but this gets more people under the umbrella of available coverage.
8. Allow employers to create a plan that is compatible with comany values, within broad limits. Requiring birth control coverage, for example is stupid since that’s a lifestyle coverage. Requiring that a plan cover mamograms or well baby visits is directly related to good medical care.

 

[sedonaman]

If you don’t look at the problem from all sides, INCLUDING THE SIDE OF THE INSURANCE COMPANIES, you will never be able to create a workable solution.

The key word here is “workable”. If private insurance is driven out, there will be government health care, which is not a workable solution. A friend had to go on Social Security at age 62. He was informed that if he earned more than $900 per month, he would lose benefits. He thought that was “stupid”. He was an avowed supporter of socialized medicine. I pointed out that the same [need-based] mentality that limited him to $900 a month would be the same running the government health care, and as a 70-year-old male, he would not be deemed in “need” of care if he had a life-threatening problem since he had essentially already led his life. The money the government saved on him would be spent on abortions for 14-year-old girls instead. He refused to comment. He is still an avowed supporter of socialized medicine.

I don’t think there is anyone who believes that the current system is perfect. But it works and works well for most people who participate. …

Those who describe it as “broken” are implying that it doesn’t work at all. Which is not the case as you point out.

 

[InJesusItrust]

I am neither liberal nor conservative (in the US sense). As far as I know popes have written just as much about the evil of free markets as they have written about the evils of socialism. The Catholic stance has nothing to do with capitalism or socialism. It recognizes that all property belong neither to an individual nor to a society–but to God. As such we must be careful not to think we deserve something from individuals in society nor to think our riches are our own. I prefer to think of it this way: If a king said I would have to give something for the common good I would. But at the same time I would not expect or vote in policies to force others to do it.