Catholics VS Health Care in America: Morally Embarrassing

[Onegin]

Nobody argued that it doesn’t cost anything.

Is that all you guys have? A continuous wave of strawmen.

A lot of people don’t understand where funding for mandates comes from. There are people (I’m thinking of that woman famously interviewed some time ago on National News who thought that Obama had a personal stash of wealth that he used to fund his proposals…!) who genuinely think that government funding comes from the government, not from the taxpayers. Or that, somehow, the government has “wealth” that exists outside of what it collects in taxes.

So no, it isn’t a strawman to remind people that governments do not create wealth, they merely take it and redistribute it through taxation. A basic concept but not a universally understood one.

 

[tonyrey]

I often hear US folks speaking fondly of the NHS as a model for healthcare coverage in Europe, so I thought I would chime in. As someone who lived for a number of years in Britain with “free”/socialised/government-funded/taxpayer-funded (pick your poison) healthcare via the NHS, perhaps I can help out with a couple of clarifications.

1. It’s been said already, but nothing, economically speaking, is “free” so we shouldn’t be using that term. The healthcare may be “free” to the party receiving it in the sense that they pay nothing, but that care still carries a significant economic cost that must be borne by either the individual, the healthcare provider (assuming it is some sort of private benefit or paid for by the government (most typically via the taxpayer). It is childish to think that just because you don’t pay for something that it doesn’t cost anything. You merely pass the costs along, and often incur further costs in the process. Come on guys, I learned this stuff in 5th grade, it’s sad to see adults actually believe the rhetoric.
2. Secondly, many economists generally agree that when a government provides a service via mandate or regulation, that service will be a) more expensive and b) more inefficient than providing the service through non-regulatory means. This isn’t an argument against all mandates or regulations, but rather it is intended to show that it is usually more efficient to provide a service through non-regulatory means or mandate, where possible. Despite emotional claims to the contrary, a top-down approach does always mean more benefit to the poor, but practically speaking, it means more bureaucracy, which can often mean LESS benefit to the recipient of the goods or services. Healthcare is no exception.
3. The National Health Service (NHS) is the world’s third largest employer, right behind the Chinese Army. 1 in 23 Britains work for it. It employs a massive amount of people, costs an enormous amount of money, and delivers a frighteningly low quality of healthcare to show for it. Sure, primary care is decent, and if you don’t like your primary care doctor in your “catchment area” (kind of like an assigned Dr.) you can request to go to another. But the real fun comes when you need what is considered to be “non-emergency” treatment, because you’ll fall into an endless queue behind those other people in more critical conditions. There are private hospitals too, and they tend to be seen as a comfortable alternative for those who can afford them, though they don’t recieve the massive amount of research money that the NHS hospitals do.
4. Everything the NHS does is about cost-cutting from the pills your doctor is allowed to recommend, to the number of days you spend in the hospital. Physicians make very few decisions regarding patient care, they must adhere to the NHS guidelines when diagnosing, prescribing and recommending treatment. And the decision-making party (the government) is operating on a purely cost-benefit analysis. If it costs more to prescribe your medicine, and there is no generic available, you don’t get it. Sure, it’s nice that your pills only cost £7.50 no matter what (waivable if you don’t have the £!) but a lot of Britains travel to the US so that they at least have the option to purchase expensive, name-brand drugs.
5. The equipment in many NHS hospitals is still floating around from the 50’s and 60’s. My NHS doctor once commented on how nice it must be for me to be able to stay in the modernised hospitals/Doctor’s offices in the US, as the NHS does not approve the purchase of new medical devices that are not deemed critical or necessary. Hospital beds are often still the old, metal rung-style, they adjust like lawn chairs. Patients are sometimes crammed together in rooms or in hallways if the quota is high. Sometimes people are turned away if the care is not deemed critical.

I guess the bottom line is that just because the government mandates that everyone should get X thing, does not at all guarantee that X will be provided to everyone, that it will be provided well, or efficiently or even better than it would be privately. In some cases, it may even mean that those who should have had X will be further injured by the decrease in quality brought about by bureaucratic intervention.

And that’s all I have to say on that.

Having had treatment in both private and NHS hospitals I would opt for the latter any time because I received excellent treatment and didn’t have to wait while the consultants attended to their rich clients. I have known private patients who were fleeced into paying for expensive drugs even though their doctors knew they were going to die in a matter of weeks. The profit motive corrupts in every walk of life and medicine is no exception.

 

[tonyrey]

Agreed! That one’s silly.

I’m wondering, though, if our moral obligation to provide health care to all people would go beyond basic health care. Meaning, if your pollen allergy gives you deathly asthma attacks, we should provide you with an inhaler, but are we obligated provide folks with allergy shots if their allergies are just sort of an annoyance in their daily life? Is nearsightedness a medical condition for which we are obligated to provide laser surgery? Contact lenses? Glasses?

So I need to do more educating on this topic. But we are certainly called to ensure everyone gets at least basic health care, whatever that means.

It means at the very least that you’re not left in pain or likely to die because you can’t afford to see a doctor or pay for drugs - but it seems some would begrudge even minimal care being funded from their tax contributions…

 

[Nate13]

An indifferent form of capitalism necessarily leads to dependency on the state in-order to achieve a basic degree of dignity for those who are marginalised and oppressed by the market place. Its unavoidable and necessary so long as we stick to a form of capitalism that promotes the trend of extreme indifferent individualism in economic matters except in cases where some form of profit to business is attainable.

Is it or is it not your position that the state should let people die if they cannot get sufficient health care via other financial means?

Its apparent you have given up on widespread virtue, and bought in to the false claims of the state of man that people like Marx taught. Man is inherently good, and when you give up on man the state is lost. You seem to buy into the notion that man is by nature in a state of war. This is the fundamental principle of communism. This kind of thinking disgusts me. Have you read any of the works of the people who influenced the creation of America? John Locke? Charles de Montesquieu? The philosophy that people like Locke put voice to is what this nation was built upon. Why don’t you learn about where we came from before you try to tell everyone where we should be going.

 

[Nate13]

It means at the very least that you’re not left in pain or likely to die because you can’t afford to see a doctor or pay for drugs - but it seems some would begrudge even minimal care being funded from their tax contributions…

No, I would gladly pay taxes to help those that need help. This monstrosity in America right now is probably the most ineffective way possible to do so and gobbles up liberty. Just imagine if we treated food stamps like some people want to treat healthcare. Instead of providing food stamps to just those who actually needed them, we would provide food stamps for everyone and tax people so we could. We would then fine people who did not want to receive the food stamps or pay for them and would rather have the liberty to spend the money freely instead of having it dictated to them what they could buy with their food stamps.

 

[tonyrey]

No, I would gladly pay taxes to help those that need help. This monstrosity in America right now is probably the most ineffective way possible to do so and gobbles up liberty. Just imagine if we treated food stamps like some people want to treat healthcare. Instead of providing food stamps to just those who actually needed them, we would provide food stamps for everyone and tax people so we could. We would then fine people who did not want to receive the food stamps because they didn’t need them.

Then we agree on the principle. Its execution is another issue.

 

[Nate13]

Then we agree on the principle. Its execution is another issue.

Nope nope I’m a right wing crazy that wants poor people to die in the street, and wants women to die on the floor! Liberals are the only compassionate people out there!..Watch out, your starting to talk reasonable

 

[Nate13]

Under US tax law you cannot get a write off for services donated, only material goods and cash.

tax-tips.us/2011/01/deducting-donated-time-or-services-in-a-business/

Great, I was proposing a change in law then. Is there anything impeding Congress constitutionally from making this kind of idea law?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Man is inherently good.

That depends on what you mean by inherently good? In the beginning we where created Good, but only in the sense of being without sin and participating in the act of reality. But that has changed in so far as sin is concerned. We are obviously not intrinsically good (Like God) in the functional sense of the word, otherwise we would never do evil. We clearly do evil; thus I am not naive like you as to think that human individuals will do good all the time. Individuals have a tendency towards sin. Most people do Good because they are coerced by their dependence on each-other. That’s why the most stable kind of society is the one where everybody is in someway functionally dependent on each-other. Most people are good for pragmatic reasons, and not because they truly value the good; and that is precisely why human need and human dignity cannot be left entirely in the hands of the market place.

 

[Nate13]

Most people do Good because they are coerced by their dependence on each-other. That’s why the most stable kind of society is the one where everybody is in someway functionally dependent on each-other. Most people are good for pragmatic reasons, and not because they truly value the good; and that is precisely why human need and human dignity cannot be left entirely in the hands of the market place.

Wow what a pessimistic view of life. People like who have given up on humanity are the real reason why there is a lack of virtue in society. Your comments speak for themselves. I do not think man is perfect by any means, but I realize that we are called to be holy and be Saints by God and society should be based on this premise, not undermine it with your pessimistic view of human nature.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Wow what a pessimistic view of life.

If I was a pessimist I wouldn’t bother having this debate. I am a realist. I take human nature for what it is, and I judge it for what it is. The world would be a different place if people were genuinely good.

 

[JackQ]

I often hear US folks speaking fondly of the NHS as a model for healthcare coverage in Europe, so I thought I would chime in. As someone who lived for a number of years in Britain with “free”/socialised/government-funded/taxpayer-funded (pick your poison) healthcare via the NHS, perhaps I can help out with a couple of clarifications.

1. It’s been said already, but nothing, economically speaking, is “free” so we shouldn’t be using that term. The healthcare may be “free” to the party receiving it in the sense that they pay nothing, but that care still carries a significant economic cost that must be borne by either the individual, the healthcare provider (assuming it is some sort of private benefit or paid for by the government (most typically via the taxpayer). It is childish to think that just because you don’t pay for something that it doesn’t cost anything. You merely pass the costs along, and often incur further costs in the process. Come on guys, I learned this stuff in 5th grade, it’s sad to see adults actually believe the rhetoric.
2. Secondly, many economists generally agree that when a government provides a service via mandate or regulation, that service will be a) more expensive and b) more inefficient than providing the service through non-regulatory means. This isn’t an argument against all mandates or regulations, but rather it is intended to show that it is usually more efficient to provide a service through non-regulatory means or mandate, where possible. Despite emotional claims to the contrary, a top-down approach does always mean more benefit to the poor, but practically speaking, it means more bureaucracy, which can often mean LESS benefit to the recipient of the goods or services. Healthcare is no exception.
3. The National Health Service (NHS) is the world’s third largest employer, right behind the Chinese Army. 1 in 23 Britains work for it. It employs a massive amount of people, costs an enormous amount of money, and delivers a frighteningly low quality of healthcare to show for it. Sure, primary care is decent, and if you don’t like your primary care doctor in your “catchment area” (kind of like an assigned Dr.) you can request to go to another. But the real fun comes when you need what is considered to be “non-emergency” treatment, because you’ll fall into an endless queue behind those other people in more critical conditions. There are private hospitals too, and they tend to be seen as a comfortable alternative for those who can afford them, though they don’t recieve the massive amount of research money that the NHS hospitals do.
4. Everything the NHS does is about cost-cutting from the pills your doctor is allowed to recommend, to the number of days you spend in the hospital. Physicians make very few decisions regarding patient care, they must adhere to the NHS guidelines when diagnosing, prescribing and recommending treatment. And the decision-making party (the government) is operating on a purely cost-benefit analysis. If it costs more to prescribe your medicine, and there is no generic available, you don’t get it. Sure, it’s nice that your pills only cost £7.50 no matter what (waivable if you don’t have the £!) but a lot of Britains travel to the US so that they at least have the option to purchase expensive, name-brand drugs.
5. The equipment in many NHS hospitals is still floating around from the 50’s and 60’s. My NHS doctor once commented on how nice it must be for me to be able to stay in the modernised hospitals/Doctor’s offices in the US, as the NHS does not approve the purchase of new medical devices that are not deemed critical or necessary. Hospital beds are often still the old, metal rung-style, they adjust like lawn chairs. Patients are sometimes crammed together in rooms or in hallways if the quota is high. Sometimes people are turned away if the care is not deemed critical.

I guess the bottom line is that just because the government mandates that everyone should get X thing, does not at all guarantee that X will be provided to everyone, that it will be provided well, or efficiently or even better than it would be privately. In some cases, it may even mean that those who should have had X will be further injured by the decrease in quality brought about by bureaucratic intervention.

And that’s all I have to say on that.

I’m not for a National Health system like you have in the UK for the reasons you have set forth. I’m for a single-payer health system. The providers would still be private and would have to compete among themselves for the single buyer, and winners of that competition would be determined mostly by patients. The bean counting would still be a problem, but that happens with private insurance here, and there would at least be a possibility of democratic redress with a single-payer system. There would be bureaucrats in the governmental or quasi-governmental entity set up for dealing with claims, but I worked in local government for most of my life, and I’ve seen where that problem can be largely overcome through a kind of customer service training.

 

[someperson555]

I often hear US folks speaking fondly of the NHS as a model for healthcare coverage in Europe, so I thought I would chime in. As someone who lived for a number of years in Britain with “free”/socialised/government-funded/taxpayer-funded (pick your poison) healthcare via the NHS, perhaps I can help out with a couple of clarifications.

1

whao whao, lets take a step back here. a few of your premises seem to be flawed.
no serious proponent of national healthcare ever said that “it will be free”, the point here is trying to make it as cheap and efficient as possible, people must understand, that the economy should be viewed AS A MEANS TO AN END, not an end in itself. therefore, the goal is: making healthcare affordable to everyone at the lowest possible cost (although its not like its impossible for healthcare to be free, perhaps theres a way, perhaps not) anyway, the economy should be treated as a means to an end, this means that its not the system or model that matters, its achieving the goal, and in any society, this goal should be the prosperity and happiness of the folk.
you must also keep in mind that there are more than two sides to an issue, that means you shouldnt automatically assume that a proponent of national healthcare supports beaurocracy, or even the way the NHS does it. i will be the first to admit that the NHS (although better than the US model) IS HEAVILY FLAWED. however if these ills are remedied, the NHS would be the best in the world.
you see, the problem with many people when they try to fix the economy is that they treat the problems allopathically, meaning they only seem to focus on one aspect at a time and dont believe that theres any connection to other parts of the economy as well. the key is treating the economy HOMEOPATHICALLY. you must treat the whole, you cant just focus on one problem. you cant just propose X solution to Y problem, and if X fails then you automatically discard X. what you must understand is that maybe X would work, if problem Z would be solved. get it? heres an example, the problem: people cant afford healthcare, the proposed solution: raise taxes to fund goverment programs that provide healthcare. result: the middle class and small businesses suffer, therefore they are forced to close their doors, and they cant consume goods and services any longer, so the big corporation also suffer, thus the whole nation suffers. so the next week in congress the republicans say “see we told you so, universal healthcare cant be done”.
heres another example, the problem: people cant afford healthcare, the proposed solution, lower taxes and remove regulations, (liberalize the market), the result: insurance companies start charging astronomical rates, they deny people for any excuse they can find. the result: the working class and small bussiness owners are forced to declare bankruptcy because of sky-high medical bills, these people can no lonnger afford goods and services from the big corporations, thus the big corporations also suffer, thus the entire nation suffer. next week in congress the democrats say: “see, we told you so! we must raise taxes!” do you see the problem here? NO ONE IS TRYING TO FIND THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM!
heres how it SHOULD be handled, the problem: people cant afford healthcare, THE CAUSES: unemployment, low wages, not enough regulations on the market. then we say, what is causing THOSE problems? answer: outsourcing, immmigration, international banking, fiat currency, FED. SOLUTION: end outsourcing, achieve autarky, back currency with labour, restrict immigration. now its possible to move on to fix the second set of problems, and then finally, the healthcare problem will resolve itself.

 

[cargau]

I was with you, cheering you on, right the way up until your last sentence, and then I sensed animosity in your comment, as do so many Catholics seem to express towards Obama. I know that some even in our clergy have all but given permission to feel this way, but this is wrong.

Believe it if you can, but opposition to the Iraq war had run high in Europe. When Obama took office, there was some mending in order. You should also know that Obama never used a word even similar to “apologize” in what Karl Rove called “Obama’s Apology Tour”. This was conservative propaganda. A ploy designed to drive a wedge between Obama and the public. It was extremely successful even though it was not true. Tell a lie often enough and it will be believed. Refer to Fact Checker, Obama’s Apology Tour.

… and if you can’t believe it, know that Pope John Paul II made an unprecedented apology for sins of the Catholic Church on March 12, 2000. John Paul was seeking repentance for sins that may have been committed over the past 2,000 years in the name of the Church.

It is titled “Memory and Reconciliation: The church and faults of the past.” It was approved by Pope John Paul II, and was written by Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.

Many leaders of the Vatican Curia opposed his action, being concerned that a confession of past errors might cause many Catholics to wonder whether the church is currently engaged in sinful behavior that will require some future pope to apologize for present-day sins. However, John Paul believed that repentance would transform the church and enable it to lead the world into a “new springtime of Christianity.” He was able to overrule the Vatican Curia.

Yes, there is a time and a place for acknowledging our collective misdeeds. I struggle with the thinking that America is the cause of all the world’s ills. And, America is virtually always wrong. In February, 2008, Michelle Obama claimed that “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am proud of America”, when referring to her husband’s run for the presidency.

Really??? Not once have you been proud, Michelle??? In spite of JPII’s apology, I suspect that in his adult life he was frequently proud of the Church.

As I said before, America is not perfect. She has (and continuesto sin) sinned. Still, there is much that America has done on behalf of the world that is admirable.

 

[cargau]

If I was a pessimist I wouldn’t bother having this debate. I am a realist. I take human nature for what it is, and I judge it for what it is. The world would be a different place if people were genuinely good.

The truth is, most people are genuinely good. Remember, we are all made in the image and likeness of God who is perfectly good. We sin, we fall but we have the benefit of the Church and the Sacraments, especially reconciliation and Eucharist. We have the Scripture and the Mass. And finally, we have a benevolent God who loves us all the way to Calvary.

We are not perfectly good since we sin. Only God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is perfectly good. But, people are genuinely good at their root. The truth is, it is up to each one of us to bring out that good in each other.

 

[anthony022071]

At a price… in direct contradiction of Pope Benedict XVI’s statement that it is the moral responsibility of nations to guarantee access to health care for all of their citizens,** regardless of **social and economic status or their ability to pay."

Poor people do get free health care if they need it,including illegal aliens. You don’t see poor people left dying in the streets for lack of access to health care.

 

[anthony022071]

Excuses excuses. More unsubstantiated myths. Well let me tell you this; its evident to anybody who actually uses their brain for something more than counting dollars and hoarding, that taxation is more of a guarantee for the poor than leaving it in the hands of the market place, a market that evidently cannot provide for everybody.

Taxation doesn’t guarantee anything except that tax money will be spent by politicians,many of whom use entitlement programs to keep people dependent upon the government and to get their votes.

Are you more concerned with keeping your money than being taxed so that the poor can get genuine healthcare?

I didn’t give any excuse for why I shouldn’t be taxed.

 

[JackQ]

Poor people do get free health care if they need it,including illegal aliens. You don’t see poor people left dying in the streets for lack of access to health care.

That depends on what street you walk on.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

No,I’m concerned about people being dependent upon the government for their personal needs,which is a perverse arrangement.

I sure its not an arrangement that you would like; but its far from being perverse. Sure the private sector won’t make as much profit, but your claim is arbitrary since you would not have a problem with the government taking tax so that the fire-service can put out your burning building or use taxes for other needs and necessities. Are you telling me that you wouldn’t have a problem with the fire services not putting out a fire in your building, that has occupants inside, because you can’t afford to pay? Only a morally deformed person or somebody with brain damage cannot see the problem with that situation; and cannot see why it would be beneficial for the state to step in and take taxes so people don’t lose their lives needlessly. Surely you don’t think that your government shouldn’t take taxes for the fire service? You wouldn’t question their morality would you? What about the police? Should they protect the lives of only those who can afford private rates?

Your claim about the perversity of free health care is just a red herring.

Please tell me that you have been joking all this time, please tell me its a joke, because if its not a joke, and you really think a persons life ought to be subject to private rates of pay alone, I cannot believe that I am talking to a real Catholic.

Government health care is not better than health care paid for by individuals or the Church. The government is not obliged by morality nor personal relationship nor the concern to retain customers to treat people with dignity and care. Since the government is the payer,and does not care about the persons it pays for,and stays in business through taxation,the patients have little say in the treatment they get,and cannot always get it promptly.

You don’t seem to get it. The people who need sufficient affordable health care won’t get sufficient affordable health care at all through private organisations, and there is evidently no reason to think they will (a fact that posters on this thread have given first hand experiences of). It is morally irresponsible to leave it in the hands of the market place since there is no guarantee at all that there will be consistently affordable rates. Its not a choice. A couple of carefully picked horror stories is not enough to determine that a free health service will not be in general - and compared to other options - beneficial to the poor. My Government gives people who are out of work money for survival: my Government provides NHS, and they do so for pragmatic reasons (and probably moral reasons); so unless your government is especially draconian in nature I fail to see why I should perceive your pessimism as anything but a lame excuse to keep the government out of your pocket.

 

[cyrusthegreat]

I often hear US folks speaking fondly of the NHS as a model for healthcare coverage in Europe, so I thought I would chime in. As someone who lived for a number of years in Britain with “free”/socialised/government-funded/taxpayer-funded (pick your poison) healthcare via the NHS, perhaps I can help out with a couple of clarifications.

1. It’s been said already, but nothing, economically speaking, is “free”…
2. Secondly, many economists generally agree that when a government provides a service via mandate or regulation, that service will be a) more expensive…
3. The National Health Service (NHS) is the world’s third largest employer…
4. Everything the NHS does is about cost-cutting from…
5. The equipment in many NHS hospitals is still floating around from the 50’s…

I guess the bottom line is that just because the government mandates that everyone should get X thing, does not at all guarantee that X will be provided to everyone, that it will be provided well, or efficiently or even better than it would be privately. In some cases, it may even mean that those who should have had X will be further injured by the decrease in quality brought about by bureaucratic intervention.

And that’s all I have to say on that.

I appreciate your overview of the British healthcare system. It is always good to learn of personal experiences people have had in other countries. I have some experience with the healthcare system’s of France, Spain and Italy, whose citizens seem to be considerably more satisfied with their nationalized health plans then those of Britain. I would be interested in knowing if you feel the apparent failure of Britain’s healthcare system is indicative of their failure as a nation, as a whole, or does it speak specifically to their healthcare system.

The 191 member World Health Organization (WHO) ranks Britain at 18th, with France, Italy, and Spain ranked at 1st, 2nd and 7th, respectively. The United States is ranked 37th, and therefore considerably lower in ranking then even that of Britain. Another undeniable fact is that as the level of government involvement in healthcare decreases, and the private sector portion increases, the World Health Organization ranking seems also to fall on the list. In other words, the US has the greater portion of its healthcare system funded by the private sector, and yet it has the far low ranking. What seems even more disturbing is that in relation to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of these countries, the US is spending 16% of its GDP on healthcare. France, Italy, and Spain spend 11%, 7% and 8%, respectively, of GDP.

More money per person is spent on health care in the US than in any other nation in the world, and a greater percentage of total income in the US is spent on health care, than in any other United Nations member state, except for East Timor. While not all people are insured in the US, we have the second highest public healthcare expenditure per capita then any United Nations member. The US pays twice as much, yet lags behind other wealthy nations in such measures of healthcare quality, as infant mortality and life expectancy. Currently, the US has a higher infant mortality rate than most of the world’s industrialized nations. Can we not, at least agree, that we could have a problem, and acknowledge that the current healthcare system has been tried for a very long time.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act may not be the answer, and there are aspects to be changed. We are the only industrialized nation in the world, that does not have a national healthcare system. If, as a nation, we have become so proud, that we cannot look to Europe or Canada, or to the most primitive nation on the face of the earth for that matter, and acknowledge, that there could be something they are doing, that could improve the health of our own citizens, then we deserve no more than what we have.