Calling all Americans Catholics! I have questions for you!

[ribozyme]

I agree. That’s why I focus on clinics. Many (most?) major medical problems are preventable, either through lifestyle changes or preventative drug treatments. Again, I think the clinics should be a state program - not federal.

So, additional details of my program (iow, if I were King ):

People who smoke, abuse alcohol/drugs, overeat, don’t exercise, etc. have greater risk and are likely to require more care than those who do their best to be healthy. Just as the cost of life insurance is pegged to these things, so should major medical insurance. On the other hand, people with genetic abnormalities (e.g. birth defects) shouldn’t be penalized for things out of their control. And, of course, some medical procedures (e.g. cosmetic surgery) should still be elective.

For those who, due to unforeseen financial ruin, poor decision-making, etc. don’t have the money to pay for major medical, they will need to rely on charity. Personally, I think that is fair.

Charity, that is just pathetic. What if there isn’t enough funding for charity. Why not allow the managerial state to take care of them.

 

[rlg94086]

Charity, that is just pathetic. What if there isn’t enough funding for charity. Why not allow the managerial state to take care of them.

Why should the managerial state take care of them? You haven’t made a good case for it.

 

[ribozyme]

Why should the managerial state take care of them? You haven’t made a good case for it.

Because it simply isn’t as reliable as a government program. Do you honestly think charity will have enough money to pay for that for everyone? Do you honestly believe that people will give very munificently?

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Charity, that is just pathetic. What if there isn’t enough funding for charity. Why not allow the managerial state to take care of them.

With all due respect, ribozyme, the reasons have already been stated, with proof to back up the reasons.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Because it simply isn’t as reliable as a government program. Do you honestly think charity will have enough money to pay for that for everyone? Do you honestly believe that people will give very munificently?

Do you live in today’s society? Do you honestly think that the government will take care of everyone? And if you do, why does it reject so many who are in desperate need right now without telling them that they have to become totally dependent on the government before the government will give them anything other than free birth control. I speak from personal experience in my life today.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Charity, that is just pathetic. What if there isn’t enough funding for charity. Why not allow the managerial state to take care of them.

Just a thought…did the way he phrased “take care of them” sound like a line from “Goodfellas” to anyone else?

That context is probably a little closer to the truth than what ribozyme had in mind.

 

[Caesar517]

Just a thought…did the way he phrased “take care of them” sound like a line from “Goodfellas” to anyone else?

That context is probably a little closer to the truth than what ribozyme had in mind.

 

[rlg94086]

Because it simply isn’t as reliable as a government program. Do you honestly **think charity will have enough money to pay for that for everyone? **Do you honestly believe that people will give very munificently?

So, apparently you didn’t read my post. Pathetic.

What I laid out doesn’t require charity to pay for everyone. As far as government programs being “reliable,” I don’t think you will make such a statement when you are older and wiser.

 

[rlg94086]

Just a thought…did the way he phrased “take care of them” sound like a line from “Goodfellas” to anyone else?

That context is probably a little closer to the truth than what ribozyme had in mind.

“You know that thing we took care of upstate?”

 

[Oscarthecat]

Because it simply isn’t as reliable as a government program.

What a great line…
“as reliable as a government program.”

Isn’t that the slogan they used to market the Yugo?

 

[thomfra]

Most people on this thread seem to think that the poor should be given free health care one way or another (via a charity for example).

But say “the government is no good at these things.”

I ask WHY, specifically, is this a logistic/financial/organisational problem for the US?

 

[rlg94086]

Most people on this thread seem to think that the poor should be given free health care one way or another (via a charity for example).

But say “the government is no good at these things.”

I ask WHY, specifically, is this a logistic/financial/organisational problem for the US?

It’s a good question. I believe it is primarily organizational - bureaucracy. However, this is not an islolated “for the US” situation. Canada and the UK and I’m sure many other countries have a lot of bureaucratic issues, as well…and it isn’t just healthcare. Just about anything the government does, private industry/charities usually do better and more efficiently.

 

[seekerz]

It’s a good question. I believe it is primarily organizational - bureaucracy. However, this is not an islolated “for the US” situation. Canada and the UK and I’m sure many other countries have a lot of bureaucratic issues, as well…and it isn’t just healthcare. Just about anything the government does, private industry/charities usually do better and more efficiently.

What objective measures do we use to assess that efficiency though? I think the appropriate comparison would be between a large charitable organization and a similar-sized government.

Subjective experiences often color our opinions, but who’s to say a conglomerate of private organisations (without government involvement in the system) running things would be more or less effective than a government? Any large scale operation that involves finance has efficiency, waste, organizational and corruption issues.

My personal experience colors my opinion in the opposite way since I once was involved with a health care service that went from government run to private corporation run (not a charitable organisation). The results was markedly higher “efficiency” and fiscal health, but significantly lower user satisfaction and higher negative outcomes mostly because of the measure taken to improve efficiency.

Subjective assessments (one way or the other), are not enough to convince me. Hard figures and facts might though…

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

It is more efficient because the people are caring about other people. Government doesn’t care about people, but volunteers do. Go to a soup kitchen, or a charitable clinic. Then go to a “Charity Hospital” run by the government. What is the difference between how people are treated? I can tell you from experience. At a government run charity hospital, a person is a number, and no one cares about you as a person. They are there to do a job from 8-5. Anything needed that would take them from their official work load is out of the question. They won’t even go out of their way to help you find a particular place in the building. And many times if the issue is forced, the attitude of the employee is very ugly. In a Church run clinic, people care about the person. Every person is treated with dignity, not as though they are a problem. Every person is treated with love and kindness. Volunteers go out of their way to take care of the needs of the poor. That is the difference, and it is extreme, and it is important. I am a poor person who, because of government beauracracy, in order to get help from the government I have to be unemployed. No charity will turn me away because I am trying my best to support myself and children as best I can. The government does so. the government doesn’t care about the people, as is obvious from my circumstances. They don’t care about how the tax dollars are spent, or they would support my desire to work and take care of myself is a good thing…while helping me with a $20,000 medical bill for a much needed operation. But they want me totally dependent on the government in order to give me anything except free birth control pills…which will not help me at all.

 

[rlg94086]

What objective measures do we use to assess that efficiency though? I think the appropriate comparison would be between a large charitable organization and a similar-sized government.

Subjective experiences often color our opinions, but who’s to say a conglomerate of private organisations (without government involvement in the system) running things would be more or less effective than a government? Any large scale operation that involves finance has efficiency, waste, organizational and corruption issues.

I don’t have time to look up the studies, but they are out there and not subjective. Regarding the large scale, that is exactly why I am very much opposed to a federal program. The closer to the patient, the more efficient and better run the program will be. Having some bureaucrat in Washington dictating the rules and regulations nationwide is a recipe for disaster IMO. We can just look at the Department of Education to see how much things have improved and costs have dropped, since it was formed.

seekerz:

My personal experience colors my opinion in the opposite way since I once was involved with a health care service that went from government run to private corporation run (not a charitable organisation). The results was markedly higher “efficiency” and fiscal health, but significantly lower user satisfaction and higher negative outcomes mostly because of the measure taken to improve efficiency.

Subjective assessments (one way or the other), are not enough to convince me. Hard figures and facts might though…

The only experience I have (obviously subjective) is with my brother’s excellent care at Shriners’ Hospital (for Crippled Children is what is was called at the time). My brother was born with a physical birth defect and received several corrective surgeries at no cost to our family. My mother was working as a secretary, raising three boys and couldn’t have afforded the surgeries. Compared to the quality of care (mixed) we received at private hospitals during my wife’s four childbirths, I would say that Shriners was better. Fiscally though, I don’t have the numbers handy.

 

[seekerz]

I don’t have time to look up the studies, but they are out there and not subjective. Regarding the large scale, that is exactly why I am very much opposed to a federal program. The closer to the patient, the more efficient and better run the program will be. Having some bureaucrat in Washington dictating the rules and regulations nationwide is a recipe for disaster IMO. We can just look at the Department of Education to see how much things have improved and costs have dropped, since it was formed.

Strange you should make the same comparison between the state of health care and education I was making mentally while composing my previous post. Somehow, there seems to be an analogy between teaching to the test and treating per arbitrary benchmarks of efficiency. To give an example, I have more than once seen scheduled interventions done strictly according to the clock, rather than according to the dictates of commonsense and basic biology. At such times, inquiries on behalf of a patient by a loved one are about as welcome as parents questioning teaching methods at a public school!

 

[seekerz]

It is more efficient because the people are caring about other people. Government doesn’t care about people, but volunteers do. Go to a soup kitchen, or a charitable clinic. Then go to a “Charity Hospital” run by the government. What is the difference between how people are treated? I can tell you from experience. At a government run charity hospital, a person is a number, and no one cares about you as a person. They are there to do a job from 8-5. Anything needed that would take them from their official work load is out of the question. They won’t even go out of their way to help you find a particular place in the building. And many times if the issue is forced, the attitude of the employee is very ugly. In a Church run clinic, people care about the person. Every person is treated with dignity, not as though they are a problem. Every person is treated with love and kindness. Volunteers go out of their way to take care of the needs of the poor. That is the difference, and it is extreme, and it is important. I am a poor person who, because of government beauracracy, in order to get help from the government I have to be unemployed. No charity will turn me away because I am trying my best to support myself and children as best I can. The government does so. the government doesn’t care about the people, as is obvious from my circumstances. They don’t care about how the tax dollars are spent, or they would support my desire to work and take care of myself is a good thing…while helping me with a $20,000 medical bill for a much needed operation. But they want me totally dependent on the government in order to give me anything except free birth control pills…which will not help me at all.

I’m sorry you’ve had that experience and I understand how this causes you to view the issue. Guess one has to stand in another’s shoes to really know.