Catholics VS Health Care in America: Morally Embarrassing

[cyrusthegreat]

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.

I’m not sure you realize what “free healthcare” for the poor currently entails. The free care of which you speak, obligates the hospital to perform an examination to determine if an emergency does exist. If no emergency, the patient is back on the street. If there is an emergency the hospital is obligated to stabilize a patient, to the extent that the patient is conscious, alert, and oriented. The cause of all symptoms reported by the patient must be ascertained and reported to the best of the hospital’s ability. That does not mean necessarily that there is any obligation to do any thing to correct the condition. Conditions that are immediately life-threatening, limb-threatening, or organ-threatening must be treated. The key word in this last sentence is “immediately”. If the condition is not “immediately” life-threatening, limb-threatening, or organ-threatening, then there is no obligation to correct the problem. Care is provided until the patient is conscious, alert, and oriented, or has expired.

If you are under any delusion, that treatment for cancer, or a hart murmurs, or any problem that is not an immediate threat to life, even though it could be eventually fatal, has to be provided… it does not.

Even this minimal health care is not free. But I don’t recall many who were concerned about how much it would cost to blow-up Iraq, or what it would cost for a life time of care for our injured soldiers. So now, I should not have to listen to a bunch whining and hand wringing about how much national healthcare could cost.

 

[LemonAndLime]

The US Healthcare system costs the government (and your tax dollars) more per person than the UK NHS does. Look it up. So really, you could end up making a saving.

So the arguments about cost seem to me, a little bit silly.

Also, the amount I pay in tax towards the NHS is less than 1/4 of what I’d pay if I had private medical insurance in the UK.

As someone who has lived in the UK and works at the NHS, on hospital wards as a carer, I can assure you the quality is second to none. Yes there are waiting lists, but if you can’t wait there is the option for private. The fact is there is a system in place which aims to include everyone. I have nursed people who fell and injured themselves (non-emergency) and were on the theatre list for the next day, and home in 3.

As to the equipment - I haven’t used anything out of date or not working.

 

[Mudgely]

I’m not sure you realize what “free healthcare” for the poor currently entails. The free care of which you speak, obligates the hospital to perform an examination to determine if an emergency does exist. If no emergency, the patient is back on the street. If there is an emergency the hospital is obligated to stabilize a patient, to the extent that the patient is conscious, alert, and oriented. The cause of all symptoms reported by the patient must be ascertained and reported to the best of the hospital’s ability. That does not mean necessarily that there is any obligation to do any thing to correct the condition. Conditions that are immediately life-threatening, limb-threatening, or organ-threatening must be treated. The key word in this last sentence is “immediately”. If the condition is not “immediately” life-threatening, limb-threatening, or organ-threatening, then there is no obligation to correct the problem. Care is provided until the patient is conscious, alert, and oriented, or has expired.

If you are under any delusion, that treatment for cancer, or a hart murmurs, or any problem that is not an immediate threat to life, even though it could be eventually fatal, has to be provided… it does not.

Even this minimal health care is not free. But I don’t recall many who were concerned about how much it would cost to blow-up Iraq, or what it would cost for a life time of care for our injured soldiers. So now, I should not have to listen to a bunch whining and hand wringing about how much national healthcare could cost.

It’s easy to show that it is possible to insure an entire population for 40-60% of what we are paying to adequately insure something like 60% of our population (counting uninsured and underinsured). The reason it is easy to show that is that countries like Japan and Germany are already doing it.

So we could pretty much reduce costs by 60% while increasing the aggregate quality of our healthcare for everyone.

It is really a no brained if your objective is affordable health care for everyone. If your motive is something else, then our system makes sense to you.

 

[Mudgely]

For those of you who are opposed to equality in marriage, a the Church is, consider also that one of the reasons that DOMA and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell are unconstitutional, and overturned federally in one case, and by state supreme court, and soon at the federal level has to do with unequal coverage and other benefits for legally married same gender spouses as compared to legally married opposite gender spouses. A position against equal and affordable healthcare has further ripples emanating from it than might first be apparent.

 

[vsedriver]

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.

that explains why you feel a need to legislate morality. People become good when they accept God’s grace and do his will. This is why it is so important to evangelize the Gospel.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

For those of you who are opposed to equality in marriage, a the Church is, consider also that one of the reasons that DOMA and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell are unconstitutional, and overturned federally in one case, and by state supreme court, and soon at the federal level has to do with unequal coverage and other benefits for legally married same gender spouses as compared to legally married opposite gender spouses. A position against equal and affordable healthcare has further ripples emanating from it than might first be apparent.

You can’t be married unless you’re a man and a woman. Two guys or two girls can’t be married, regardless of what law a government can come up with. So I’m sorry I support tradition and I’m bigoted or whatever else I might be called, but I’m a Christian.

 

[someperson555]

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.

“the age of the most despicable man is coming”- Nietzsche
“the world is beautiful, but it has a disease called man” - Nietzsche
“man is something that shall be overcome” -Nietszche
“If men were governed by angels, there would be no need of external government, if men were angels, government would not be necessary” -James madison

if man were inherently good as you put it, then they would not need the church or God either.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

“the age of the most despicable man is coming”- Nietzsche
“the world is beautiful, but it has a disease called man” - Nietzsche
“man is something that shall be overcome” -Nietszche
“If men were governed by angels, there would be no need of external government, if men were angels, government would not be necessary” -James madison

if man were inherently good as you put it, then they would not need the church or God either.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

Nor do you** see **poor people left dying at home for lack of access to health care…

 

[Swiss_Guy]

When you see the rest of the western world having universal health care besides us, I think there is a problem. It doesn’t even have to be public (although I’m all for it ), but even countries that mainly have privatized health care (e.g Switzerland) still have universal health care. If the person can’t pay for their health care, the state steps in to help them. I think that’s a pretty good system.

 

[someperson555]

thanks mindovermatter2, thats a great quote in your signiture by the way.

 

[tonyrey]

When you see the rest of the western world having universal health care besides us, I think there is a problem. It doesn’t even have to be public (although I’m all for it ), but even countries that mainly have privatized health care (e.g Switzerland) still have universal health care. If the person can’t pay for their health care, the state steps in to help them. I think that’s a pretty good system.

Not to have a state health care system reflects adversely on those who are in a position of power…

 

[mary_bobo]

You can’t be married unless you’re a man and a woman. Two guys or two girls can’t be married, regardless of what law a government can come up with. So I’m sorry I support tradition and I’m bigoted or whatever else I might be called, but I’m a Christian.

Never, ever, apologize for embracing the truth. It is also not bigoted to embrace the truth. That does not mean that one is uncharitable,nor treated others in a bad way, just that they adhere to the laws of God.

 

[mary_bobo]

I’m not sure you realize what “free healthcare” for the poor currently entails. The free care of which you speak, obligates the hospital to perform an examination to determine if an emergency does exist. If no emergency, the patient is back on the street. If there is an emergency the hospital is obligated to stabilize a patient, to the extent that the patient is conscious, alert, and oriented. The cause of all symptoms reported by the patient must be ascertained and reported to the best of the hospital’s ability. That does not mean necessarily that there is any obligation to do any thing to correct the condition. Conditions that are immediately life-threatening, limb-threatening, or organ-threatening must be treated. The key word in this last sentence is “immediately”. If the condition is not “immediately” life-threatening, limb-threatening, or organ-threatening, then there is no obligation to correct the problem. Care is provided until the patient is conscious, alert, and oriented, or has expired.

If you are under any delusion, that treatment for cancer, or a hart murmurs, or any problem that is not an immediate threat to life, even though it could be eventually fatal, has to be provided… it does not.

Even this minimal health care is not free. But I don’t recall many who were concerned about how much it would cost to blow-up Iraq, or what it would cost for a life time of care for our injured soldiers. So now, I should not have to listen to a bunch whining and hand wringing about how much national healthcare could cost.

You do not have to listen. Drop out of this thread if it offends you.

 

[LemonAndLime]

When you see the rest of the western world having universal health care besides us, I think there is a problem. It doesn’t even have to be public (although I’m all for it ), but even countries that mainly have privatized health care (e.g Switzerland) still have universal health care. If the person can’t pay for their health care, the state steps in to help them. I think that’s a pretty good system.

Here in the UK everyone is entitled to NHS treatment, but if you don’t want to wait a bit longer for elective/non-emergency treatments there is private hospitals/private medical insurance. Private hospitals do about the same as NHS in quality audits, however if you go private you’re more likely to have “perks” such as your own room, etc.

Regarding private hospitals - I’m not sure how I’d feel knowing that my doctor had a personal financial interest in me being sick.

 

[tonyrey]

Never, ever, apologize for embracing the truth. It is also not bigoted to embrace the truth. That does not mean that one is uncharitable,nor treated others in a bad way, just that they adhere to the laws of God.

Even in our secular society in the UK a young man who had encouraged his girl friend to have an abortion admitted to me he felt guilty even though it had occurred before we had met and I knew nothing about it. It shows that just being an openly practising Catholic has an effect on those who have no religion… I forget what I said to him but it must have been on the lines of “I’m sure you wouldn’t do it again now you realise it’s wrong.”

 

[dmelosi]

Today’s sermon on the current health care law summed up Catholic teaching.

usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/conscience-protection/index.cfm

It was made in a very clear way that to participate in allowing what the Obama administration is trying to force down Catholics throat is a grave sin in itself.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Today’s sermon on the current health care law summed up Catholic teaching.

usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/conscience-protection/index.cfm

It was made in a very clear way that to participate in allowing what the Obama administration is trying to force down Catholics throat is a grave sin in itself.

Obama has no choice. You do not live in a theocracy, therefore you necessarily live in a society that has a plurality of moral values and religious beliefs. Therefore Christian theology and the Christian conscience does not come first in defining the definition of legal right and wrong, and has no relevance when determining secular law.

What the individual Catholic employer should fight for is the right not to provide those things which conflict with his conscience.

 

[dmelosi]

Obama has no choice. You do not live in a theocracy, therefore you necessarily live in a society that has a plurality of moral values and religious beliefs. Therefore Christian theology and the Christian conscience does not come first in defining the definition of legal right and wrong, and has no relevance when determining secular law.

Obama added this provision to the law. This was not voted on. I don’t know how you can fool yourself into believing that it wasn’t him. Answer this, did Obama have no choice in arguing the infants born alive act? Do you know what that is? Obama argued that if an abortion failed and the baby lived, Obama argued that it should be ok to withhold medical care and allow the baby to die because the original intent was to abort.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Obama added this provision to the law. This was not voted on…

Assuming the public vote is always a valid regulator of secular law.

Answer this, did Obama have no choice in arguing the infants born alive act? Do you know what that is? Obama argued that if an abortion failed and the baby lived, Obama argued that it should be ok to withhold medical care and allow the baby to die because the original intent was to abort.

I am against it, but i think its naive to think that such a monstrosity can be changed through voting. It seems to me that public vote has very little to do with the right to abortion so long as it is presented as a human right.

However i think people should certainly march against the killing of a born baby since a baby is a visible object that everyone can see, and perhaps you would have a more reasonable chance of success. Although, i must say that, a secular society has no natural reason to view any difference between a born baby and one that is growing in a womb.

These horrors seem to me to be the natural and inevitable result of the philosophy on which American society is based. Like i said you are not a theocracy.