E
estesbob
Guest
I hurt my Knee last week. Went to the Dr Thursday, had MRI Friday and surgery scheduled for tomorrow. I doubt Ill be able to do this 5 years from now and I know i couldn’t have done it in Canada
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
SamH
Guest
Except it didn’t happen that way at all - if that was the plan. Even the Penn family lost their colony.Your opportunity theory is not entirely accurate, however. Since the beginning of this country, the majority of the property has been owned by a tiny minority of the population. George Washington was perhaps the wealthiest man in America, at the time. There is an historic theory that the real goal of the American revolution was to seize vast wealth of American land from British royalty to transfer it to the new American royalty.
.
S
SamH
Guest
Unless of course you were a professional athlete.I hurt my Knee last week. Went to the Dr Thursday, had MRI Friday and surgery scheduled for tomorrow. I doubt Ill be able to do this 5 years from now and I know i couldn’t have done it in Canada
S
SamH
Guest
Besides the US where are these other countries you speak of?The rest of the advanced countries in the world do see access to healthcare as a basic human right. They are able to provide comparable care to all of their people at a lower price than the US system does to some of its people.
.
B
bsroufek
Guest
Unregulated capitalism/free market economy is evil, as the Church teaches. With Obamacare, we have unregulated insurance companies who charge a lot and give huge deductibles (give little). With the old system, hospitals and some doctors charged hugely exorbitant fees for services, one reason they gave for which was malpractice costs, which is another unregulated industry–multiple millions given for a fault.
F
FireFromHeaven
Guest
What we need is affordable health care, not affordable insurance. We need to address the huge overcharges in health care by physicians, who often charge many thousands for minor things. Hospitals and Provider charges should be regulated IMO.
That is an interesting idea. How would you reccomend this be done?
That is an interesting idea. How would you reccomend this be done?
E
epan
Guest
Yet, 70% of the country’s wealth was in the hands of 10% of the population in 1775. That has not changed. The rules are simple. At Wharton, MBA students are taught the lesson with a simple game of Monopoly. 1/2 the class leaves the room while the other half plays the game. After a short period of time to allow the first half to acquire property, the second half joins the game. This lesson has been taught for decades. There has never been a case of someone joining the game late who did not go bankrupt.Except it didn’t happen that way at all - if that was the plan. Even the Penn family lost their colony.
You may think that Social Darwinism is a great idea. However, in practice it is very ugly, unless you are at the top of the food chain.
But then, my personal predilection is to help the poor and the sick. So, I am probably not the best judge of these things. I just do my thing with the resources that I have. I was born with the proverbial silver spoon in my mouth. My family rubs shoulders with presidents (literally). My GF in college was the US ambassor’s daughter from a major country. The family is something like 10th generation at that college. So, while I am not all that political, I do know how the 1% live. I did indeed have a heated toilet seat in my own bathroom, when I was a kid. I did indeed fly in a private jet, etc.
I don’t choose that lifestyle for myself. Perhaps it makes sense to others.
And, to be honest, while I did live on an enlisted Marine’s paycheck, and later on an officer’s, I have not given up the security of knowing that I have some resources at my disposal which guarantee my financial security as long as I live. So, in a certain way, I am extremely fortunate to be able to make the choices that I make freely, but I am also something of a hypocrite. I do donate my entire unearned income to charities, but the fact remains that I have nothing to worry about financially, no matter what I do.
That disclaimer is meant to put my perspective on the table. I have some privileges most don’t.
E
epan
Guest
We have the great advantage of being able to examine many other healthcare systems, which have been in operation for decades. We can choose the best practices from the good ones, and learn the lessons of failure where others don’t work as well.Unless of course you ned a CAT scan - then suddenly Canada doesn’t look to good.
If you think that Germany, Japan or Sweden don’t provide better care by nearly every measure than the US, then think again. And yet, they do it at a lower cost than we do. And yet, they do it for their entire populations. Imagine, if you will, a system which will care for you, even if you can’t work because you are suddenly injured and need medical attention. A German (and this if from personal experience) is flabbergasted by the American standard that if you are not working, then you don’t deserve medical care. The question arises, what if you are not working because you need medical care? Our system is incomprehensible to reasonable people of conscience.
F
freeRadical
Guest
Please give me the official Church teaching that capitalism/free market economy is evil.Unregulated capitalism/free market economy is evil, as the Church teaches. With Obamacare, we have unregulated insurance companies who charge a lot and give huge deductibles (give little). With the old system, hospitals and some doctors charged hugely exorbitant fees for services, one reason they gave for which was malpractice costs, which is another unregulated industry–multiple millions given for a fault.
E
epan
Guest
huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/01/pope-slams-capitalism-ine_n_2392653.htmlPlease give me the official Church teaching that capitalism/free market economy is evil.
theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/22/pope-francis-idol-money
reuters.com/article/2013/05/21/us-pope-capitalism-idUSBRE94K12K20130521
S
StopDropandBowl
Guest
What responsibility does a nation have to make sure that its citizens have health insurance?
F
FireFromHeaven
Guest
Nations dont necessarily have a responsibility to make sure all have health insurance. Nations do have an obligation to make sure the sick are cared for. If a socialized medicine system works best without bankrupting the economy, the a society is obligated to do this.What responsibility does a nation have to make sure that its citizens have health insurance?
S
StopDropandBowl
Guest
Where has it been established that a nation has an obligation to make sure every sick person is cared for? Obviously we as people have an obligation to help the sick, but that doesn’t mean our governments have such an obligation, nor does it mean that scarce resources can’t be rationed.Nations dont necessarily have a responsibility to make sure all have health insurance. Nations do have an obligation to make sure the sick are cared for. If a socialized medicine system works best without bankrupting the economy, the a society is obligated to do this.
If the choice is between a socialized medical system that necessarily limits the freedom of it’s citizens and imposes a burdensome cost upon its non-sick citizens, or withholding some care from sick people who can’t afford it, I’ll choose the second option.
F
freeRadical
Guest
Those are not official Church teachings from the Vatican.
E
estesbob
Guest
So why didnt Bill Gates and Steve Jobs go bankrupt?Yet, 70% of the country’s wealth was in the hands of 10% of the population in 1775. That has not changed. The rules are simple. At Wharton, MBA students are taught the lesson with a simple game of Monopoly. 1/2 the class leaves the room while the other half plays the game. After a short period of time to allow the first half to acquire property, the second half joins the game. This lesson has been taught for decades. There has never been a case of someone joining the game late who did not go bankrupt.
You may think that Social Darwinism is a great idea. However, in practice it is very ugly, unless you are at the top of the food chain.
But then, my personal predilection is to help the poor and the sick. So, I am probably not the best judge of these things. I just do my thing with the resources that I have. I was born with the proverbial silver spoon in my mouth. My family rubs shoulders with presidents (literally). My GF in college was the US ambassor’s daughter from a major country. The family is something like 10th generation at that college. So, while I am not all that political, I do know how the 1% live. I did indeed have a heated toilet seat in my own bathroom, when I was a kid. I did indeed fly in a private jet, etc.
I don’t choose that lifestyle for myself. Perhaps it makes sense to others.
And, to be honest, while I did live on an enlisted Marine’s paycheck, and later on an officer’s, I have not given up the security of knowing that I have some resources at my disposal which guarantee my financial security as long as I live. So, in a certain way, I am extremely fortunate to be able to make the choices that I make freely, but I am also something of a hypocrite. I do donate my entire unearned income to charities, but the fact remains that I have nothing to worry about financially, no matter what I do.
That disclaimer is meant to put my perspective on the table. I have some privileges most don’t.
M
markomalley
Guest
Can you please provide a quote from a document from the Universal Magisterium that backs up the claim above?Unregulated capitalism/free market economy is evil, as the Church teaches.
FWIW, from the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church:
- The free market is an institution of social importance because of its capacity to guarantee effective results in the production of goods and services. Historically, it has shown itself able to initiate and sustain economic development over long periods. There are good reasons to hold that, in many circumstances, “the free market is the most efficient instrument for utilizing resources and effectively responding to needs”.[726] The Church’s social doctrine appreciates the secure advantages that the mechanisms of the free market offer, making it possible as they do to utilize resources better and facilitating the exchange of products. These mechanisms “above all … give central place to the person’s desires and preferences, which, in a contract, meet the desires and preferences of another person”.[727]
To me, that sounds like an endorsement of a competitive market economy.
F
FireFromHeaven
Guest
Pardon my lack of clarity. A better word would have been society. This doesn’t mean that government has to do it. It just means that we should care for the sick in the most efficient way possible. If socialized medicine works best(I personally don’t think it does) then we should adopt it.Where has it been established that a nation has an obligation to make sure every sick person is cared for? Obviously we as people have an obligation to help the sick, but that doesn’t mean our governments have such an obligation, nor does it mean that scarce resources can’t be rationed.
If the choice is between a socialized medical system that necessarily limits the freedom of it’s citizens and imposes a burdensome cost upon its non-sick citizens, or withholding some care from sick people who can’t afford it, I’ll choose the second option.
D
dandingo
Guest
First of all, no one goes without health care. Yes, there are people without health insurance, but no one is turned away from hospitals if the problem is serious enough. This is a common misconception.The reason I don’t think that the free market is sufficient is that it hasn’t been. Even now there are still many who don’t have health care. As catholics it is our duty to help the sick. Note that I’m not advocating socialized medicine. I’m looking for an alternative method that helps about the same number of people. Correct me if I’m wrong but the free market has failed to do that.
The problem is it isn’t a free market. Here in California, there are less than 20 health insurance companies allowed to sell insurance. Why not open it nationwide, to all insurance companies, and see if prices drop? I can almost guarantee it would happen. What do we have to lose?
By the way, this is coming from someone who has had more health problems over the past twelve years than 99.99999% of the population will have in their lifetime. I would benefit more than anyone from Obamacare but know that the quality of service will diminish and that government ruins everything it touches.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Medical malpractice contributes only about 2% to the cost. Admin costs related to dealing with insurance, however, add a fair amount too.
Nationalizing health insurance probably would not help because they would still be looking at the same numbers that the current insurers are looking at. Moreover, if it were sold across state lines, it would come under federal regs instead of state–I am not really sure how it is constitutional for the feds to do what they are doing.
Had the federal government really wanted to help, they could have just dealt with the problem which existed: the fact that many were unable to get health insurance because of pre-existing conditions. This could have been done easily by a state-subsidized high-risk pool, special openings in Medicaid, or anything similar.
Another helpful and very fair thing they could have done would have been to make health costs including payment of insurance premiums omething you take off your initial income on your taxes. up til now (and I think this will still be the case) those who receive health insurance as a benefit do not pay taxes on the value. Additionally, the company takes that money out on their taxes as a business cost.
If one buys HI for oneself or oneself and one’s family, it counts for nothing on our taxes. We have to earn the money for the premiums and to pay the taxes on the money we pay for premiums. A change in the tax law would have made it much more advatageous to buy HI.
The states had already imposed various mandates on HI, so in many states, things like drug rehab were required–huge and foolish problem. Allowing people to get catastrophic without the bells and whistles would also hav encouraged young healthy people to get some coverage for the rare occasions it is needed.
The above, along with an evening-out of the transition between using Medicaid and using other HI, would probably have covered almost all the health insurance problems that the ACA was supposed to solve, *at a much lower cost to us. *Maybe additional tax breaks for businesses would have been needed to finish off.
Quite honestly, this is all a cover for the fact that in 12 years, if we are lucky, there will be only 2 people employed for each retiree, and we will be simply unable to afford to care for them as we have promised… of course, quite a lot of that problem could be solved by applying means testing, despite the appearance, bit not the legal reality, of a “broken promise.”
Nationalizing health insurance probably would not help because they would still be looking at the same numbers that the current insurers are looking at. Moreover, if it were sold across state lines, it would come under federal regs instead of state–I am not really sure how it is constitutional for the feds to do what they are doing.
Had the federal government really wanted to help, they could have just dealt with the problem which existed: the fact that many were unable to get health insurance because of pre-existing conditions. This could have been done easily by a state-subsidized high-risk pool, special openings in Medicaid, or anything similar.
Another helpful and very fair thing they could have done would have been to make health costs including payment of insurance premiums omething you take off your initial income on your taxes. up til now (and I think this will still be the case) those who receive health insurance as a benefit do not pay taxes on the value. Additionally, the company takes that money out on their taxes as a business cost.
If one buys HI for oneself or oneself and one’s family, it counts for nothing on our taxes. We have to earn the money for the premiums and to pay the taxes on the money we pay for premiums. A change in the tax law would have made it much more advatageous to buy HI.
The states had already imposed various mandates on HI, so in many states, things like drug rehab were required–huge and foolish problem. Allowing people to get catastrophic without the bells and whistles would also hav encouraged young healthy people to get some coverage for the rare occasions it is needed.
The above, along with an evening-out of the transition between using Medicaid and using other HI, would probably have covered almost all the health insurance problems that the ACA was supposed to solve, *at a much lower cost to us. *Maybe additional tax breaks for businesses would have been needed to finish off.
Quite honestly, this is all a cover for the fact that in 12 years, if we are lucky, there will be only 2 people employed for each retiree, and we will be simply unable to afford to care for them as we have promised… of course, quite a lot of that problem could be solved by applying means testing, despite the appearance, bit not the legal reality, of a “broken promise.”
- Status
- Not open for further replies.