Catholics VS Health Care in America: Morally Embarrassing

[dmelosi]

Well, objective evidence disagrees. Do I really need to do a Monte RCMS data dump?

Even his own numbers indicate that healthcare costs disproportionately affect the least wealthy. Whether or not you agree with UHC or Monte RCMS-style insurance reform, the fact is that - right now - people lose their lives and livelihoods to a broken healthcare system.

Yes, it is very sad. Unfortunately, abortions will happen whether or not it is accepted. That is a fact of life. The best you can hope to do is educate your children why they should not get abortions, and to discourage the practice in your community. In the meantime, I do not believe it’s justified to deny affordable and accessible healthcare to everyone because a minority of individuals choose to have abortions.

Sure not a big deal to kill a million or so a year.

 

[endoentropism]

Your quote says that it leaves the poorest behind. Yes please do the data dump.

“Despite the fact that we in the U.S. spend a great deal on health care, many Americans are wtihout health insurance and are thus exposed to great medical and financial risks … Young adults, children, minorities, and workers with gaps in employment are the groups most likely to lack coverage.”

“Those most likely to experience a gap in health insurance coverage tended to be minority, young, low-income and with tenuous connection to the workforce … Poor persons (those whose ratio of family income to the poverty line was less than one) were the most likely to be without coverage,”

“The health-care burden on families and businesses is greater in the United Stated than in the other OECD counrties primarily due to our lack of public commitment to health-care provision.”
The State of Working America, 1991

“Medicaid does not provide medical assistance for all poor persons. Even under the broadest provisions of the Federal statute (except for emergency services for certain persons), the Medicaid program does not provide health care services, even for very poor persons, unless they are in one of the designated eligibility groups.”
Overview - What is Not Covered, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

“First, because medical care is not explicitly included as a necessity in the definition of poverty thresholds, some households may be classified as nonpoor even though they do not have command over enough resources to obtain adequate health care.”

“Poverty, disability, and poor health are conjoined for a substantial number of families in the United States. Environmental and social conditions associated with poverty can cause or exacerbate disabilities and chornic health problems, and medical costs associated with health problems or loss of employment due to illness or disability can plunge a family into poverty … Census 2000 data indicate that families with members with a disability are more likely to be in poverty (12.8%) compared to families who not experience disability (7.7%). Conversely, studies indicate that both child and adult rates of disability are higher among poor families.”
Child Poverty in America Today: Health and Medical Care

“In the meantime, the health care industry consolidated and eventually became dominated by huge business-like conglomerates. In Katz’s terms, it was a “corporate makeover.” There was a rise in investor-owned hospitals and group practices by doctors with joint ownership in for-profit hospitals. Still, costs were not reduced. Employer plans became both more expensive and less comprehensive. Along with the changes in the labor market, the proportion of covered employees declined from 86% to 74%. Only about half the poor were covered by Medicaid. The spread of managed care, however, reduced the ability of hospitals to finance uncompensated care. The elderly, even with Medicare, still spent more than a fifth of their income on health care.”
Blame Welfare, Ignore Poverty and Inequality (referring to the period between 1981 and 1995)

"In addition to closing hospitals and medical centers and reducing staff, HMOs began to drop Medicaid programs because of the decline in government reimbursement rates (by 20% between mid- and late-1990s); similarly, HMOs dropped more than 700,000 Medicare patients between 1998 and 1999. The federal government estimated than an additional 200,000 would be dropped by 2000. The rise in health costs did begin to slow, starting in 1996, but this mostly benefited employers and providers as they continued to shift more of the costs to their employees; insurance companies continued to increase Medigap insurance; the premiums for Medicare Part B increased; and more public assistance recipients were removed from Medicaid … As Katz points out, “those particularly vulnerable were the low- and middle-income families, young adults, the near aged, [etc…] … On average, the worker’s share of the premium was 30% - the average annual cost for family health coverage was $7,481 for an HMO, $10,020 for a prefered provider organization plan.”
Blame Welfare, Ignore Poverty and Inequality

 

[dmelosi]

“Despite the fact that we in the U.S. spend a great deal on health care, many Americans are wtihout health insurance and are thus exposed to great medical and financial risks … Young adults, children, minorities, and workers with gaps in employment are the groups most likely to lack coverage.”

“Those most likely to experience a gap in health insurance coverage tended to be minority, young, low-income and with tenuous connection to the workforce … Poor persons (those whose ratio of family income to the poverty line was less than one) were the most likely to be without coverage,”

“The health-care burden on families and businesses is greater in the United Stated than in the other OECD counrties primarily due to our lack of public commitment to health-care provision.”
The State of Working America, 1991

“Medicaid does not provide medical assistance for all poor persons. Even under the broadest provisions of the Federal statute (except for emergency services for certain persons), the Medicaid program does not provide health care services, even for very poor persons, unless they are in one of the designated eligibility groups.”
Overview - What is Not Covered, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

“First, because medical care is not explicitly included as a necessity in the definition of poverty thresholds, some households may be classified as nonpoor even though they do not have command over enough resources to obtain adequate health care.”

“Poverty, disability, and poor health are conjoined for a substantial number of families in the United States. Environmental and social conditions associated with poverty can cause or exacerbate disabilities and chornic health problems, and medical costs associated with health problems or loss of employment due to illness or disability can plunge a family into poverty … Census 2000 data indicate that families with members with a disability are more likely to be in poverty (12.8%) compared to families who not experience disability (7.7%). Conversely, studies indicate that both child and adult rates of disability are higher among poor families.”
Child Poverty in America Today: Health and Medical Care

“In the meantime, the health care industry consolidated and eventually became dominated by huge business-like conglomerates. In Katz’s terms, it was a “corporate makeover.” There was a rise in investor-owned hospitals and group practices by doctors with joint ownership in for-profit hospitals. Still, costs were not reduced. Employer plans became both more expensive and less comprehensive. Along with the changes in the labor market, the proportion of covered employees declined from 86% to 74%. Only about half the poor were covered by Medicaid. The spread of managed care, however, reduced the ability of hospitals to finance uncompensated care. The elderly, even with Medicare, still spent more than a fifth of their income on health care.”
Blame Welfare, Ignore Poverty and Inequality (referring to the period between 1981 and 1995)

"In addition to closing hospitals and medical centers and reducing staff, HMOs began to drop Medicaid programs because of the decline in government reimbursement rates (by 20% between mid- and late-1990s); similarly, HMOs dropped more than 700,000 Medicare patients between 1998 and 1999. The federal government estimated than an additional 200,000 would be dropped by 2000. The rise in health costs did begin to slow, starting in 1996, but this mostly benefited employers and providers as they continued to shift more of the costs to their employees; insurance companies continued to increase Medigap insurance; the premiums for Medicare Part B increased; and more public assistance recipients were removed from Medicaid … As Katz points out, “those particularly vulnerable were the low- and middle-income families, young adults, the near aged, [etc…] … On average, the worker’s share of the premium was 30% - the average annual cost for family health coverage was $7,481 for an HMO, $10,020 for a prefered provider organization plan.”
Blame Welfare, Ignore Poverty and Inequality

Now instead of copying and pasting, I would like to see some numbers analyzed on what this means. I don’t know how quickly I can get to it, but want to try to put this in terms of how Monty did his post.

If you would have said leave some of the very poor out, I would have agreed, but your statement led to believe that it left all of the very poor behind. Your copying and pasting data dump does not say that.

 

[endoentropism]

Now instead of copying and pasting, I would like to see some numbers analyzed on what this means. I don’t know how quickly I can get to it, but want to try to put this in terms of how Monty did his post.

If you would have said leave some of the very poor out, I would have agreed, but your statement led to believe that it left all of the very poor behind. Your copying and pasting data dump does not say that.

My copying & pasting data dump quite clearly shows that the poor are at a severe disadvantage when it comes to healthcare costs; that they cannot wholly rely on programs such as MediCaid, and even the elderly are putting out up to 20% of their incomes on healthcare costs over and above what MediCare provides. The poorer you are the more likely you are to be uninsured or disabled; if you are disabled, you are more likely to live in poverty than someone who is not.

Even if you’re poor in a real sense, you may not qualify for Medicaid because of the metrics used by the government to measure poverty rates.

In a country where a celebrity can buy-out an entire maternity wing of a hospital to ensure it’s a “private” birth - and health care costs are the cause of a the majority of personal bankruptcies - I don’t know how you can claim that America’s isn’t a two-tiered system: one for the wealthy, and one for everyone else.

 

[dmelosi]

My copying & pasting data dump quite clearly shows that the poor are at a severe disadvantage when it comes to healthcare costs; that they cannot wholly rely on programs such as MediCaid, and even the elderly are putting out up to 20% of their incomes on healthcare costs over and above what MediCare provides. The poorer you are the more likely you are to be uninsured or disabled; if you are disabled, you are more likely to live in poverty than someone who is not.

Even if you’re poor in a real sense, you may not qualify for Medicaid because of the metrics used by the government to measure poverty rates.

In a country where a celebrity can buy-out an entire maternity wing of a hospital to ensure it’s a “private” birth - and health care costs are the cause of a the majority of personal bankruptcies - I don’t know how you can claim that America’s isn’t a two-tiered system: one for the wealthy, and one for everyone else.

Anyone buying an entire maternity wing is such a rarity, it shows how extreme you are in using that as an example. If you use that example, it would be two tiered, a system for 3 or 4 people and the other system for over 300 million people. Please reread Monteys post on the bankruptcy thing, it made a lot of sense on how to fix that problem.

 

[tonyrey]

My copying & pasting data dump quite clearly shows that the poor are at a severe disadvantage when it comes to healthcare costs; that they cannot wholly rely on programs such as MediCaid, and even the elderly are putting out up to 20% of their incomes on healthcare costs over and above what MediCare provides. The poorer you are the more likely you are to be uninsured or disabled; if you are disabled, you are more likely to live in poverty than someone who is not.

Even if you’re poor in a real sense, you may not qualify for Medicaid because of the metrics used by the government to measure poverty rates.

In a country where a celebrity can buy-out an entire maternity wing of a hospital to ensure it’s a “private” birth - and health care costs are the cause of a the majority of personal bankruptcies - I don’t know how you can claim that America’s isn’t a two-tiered system: one for the wealthy, and one for everyone else.

It is incredible that anyone can deny the immense disparity between the richest and poorest members of society - and imply that it does not contravene Christ’s teaching. What has happened to the principle of fraternity?

 

[tomarin]

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.

Good points, Onegin.

 

[dmelosi]

It is incredible that anyone can deny the immense disparity between the richest and poorest members of society - and imply that it does not contravene Christ’s teaching. What has happened to the principle of fraternity?

We were not talking about the immense disparity between the richest and poorest members of society. We were talking about leaving the poor behind in health coverage, implied was all of the poor.

But you mention Christ’s teaching. Do you think killing a million a year has anything to do with it? Just curious at what do you think Christ’s cut off point on killing each year is? 2 million? 3 million? What would you set as the cut off point?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

My experience and my wife’s experience is that if you show up at a hospital, they have to treat you. She worked in the admitting office. People with no insurance and no money were given special and excellent treatment.

Decades ago, some relatives with jobs presented themselves at the “clinic” and got free surgery.

They were unhappy with the long waits, so I encouraged them to buy insurance.

Which they did.

And from that point on, they made appointments and got to pick and choose their doctors.

At one point they announced that they were going to drop their medical insurance claiming lack of money, so I offered to pay the premiums. They didn’t want me to. In retrospect, they seemed to want sympathy more than medical care.

In any event, I went ahead and paid the quarterly premiums. During one of the hospital episodes, I faxed the actual policy to the hospital’s care manager. They were sort of shocked because it was a super-Cadillac policy and paid 100% of everything.

Eventually, after 50+ surgeries, the person died.

The situation was miserable overall, for years. Doctors were overwhelmingly sympathetic. And worked on the care above and beyond the call of duty. One surgeon worked with a team for so many hours, that their legs gave out. Eventually, the cumulative effects of so much anesthesia made the outlook problematical.

Their local parish church had a social worker who was very helpful, even though our relatives refused to go to church.

In going through their effects, we found huge amounts … hundreds of pounds … of hobby and craft supplies. In addition to not wanting to buy medical insurance, they also didn’t want to buy food. We were doing their shopping when we found out they weren’t eating. So, we did their shopping for them and also arranged for a local supermarket to pick and deliver and we paid with a credit card.

The supermarket manager was very understanding.

We also made arrangements with local restaurants to deliver take-out food. We got nothing but complaints.

We were shocked when we found they had spend vast amounts of money on craft supplies rather than buy food.

But, anyway that is one story.

I will go over each of the accusations one by one.

But I will tell you that I simply do not believe them to be either accurate or true.

 

[endoentropism]

Anyone buying an entire maternity wing is such a rarity, it shows how extreme you are in using that as an example. If you use that example, it would be two tiered, a system for 3 or 4 people and the other system for over 300 million people. Please reread Monteys post on the bankruptcy thing, it made a lot of sense on how to fix that problem.

Yes, but that’s the point – even Monte’s post indicates that there is a problem. Period. The status quo disproportionately harms the people who can least afford it. Now, whether the ideal solution is insurance reform or universal health care is a separate debate from whether or not there is a problem.

And by any meaningful measure, a problemis.

 

[dmelosi]

Yes, but that’s the point – even Monte’s post indicates that there is a problem. Period. The status quo disproportionately harms the people who can least afford it. Now, whether the ideal solution is insurance reform or universal health care is a separate debate from whether or not there is a problem.

And by any meaningful measure, there is a problem.

As I have stated in many of my posts on here, I agree with you on that.

I just have not agreed with your exaggerations. All they do is inflame.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

There are 233 comments … many of which take significant exception to the article.

I suggest you read the comments.

reuters.com/article/comments/idUSTRE65M0SU20100623

 

[tonyrey]

We were not talking about the immense disparity between the richest and poorest members of society. We were talking about leaving the poor behind in health coverage, implied was all of the poor.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Yes, but that’s the point – even Monte’s post indicates that there is a problem. Period. The status quo disproportionately harms the people who can least afford it. Now, whether the ideal solution is insurance reform or universal health care is a separate debate from whether or not there is a problem.

And by any meaningful measure, there is a problem.

I guess you didn’t read what I wrote.

Not a “data-dump”.

The problem was CAUSED by the government!

It was the government that has controlled and progressively strangled medical insurance … and restricted it … since the 1940’s!

It has been the GOVERNMENT that progressively denied individuals the same degree of tax relief enjoyed by large employers.

It was the late Senator Ted Kennedy (RIP) who fought to his death to restrict free choice in medical insurance.

There have been tremendous innovations in medical insurance … but the GOVERNMENT will not those innovations to be adopted by the people! … even though those innovations have proven to be enormously popular! WE HAVE SEEN THAT IN INDIANA, for example.

So you can quote a very limited study … and ignore the 233 comments.

 

[endoentropism]

But you mention Christ’s teaching. Do you think killing a million a year has anything to do with it? Just curious at what do you think Christ’s cut off point on killing each year is? 2 million? 3 million? What would you set as the cut off point?

That’s an awful way to frame the topic at hand. I’m sorry, it really is. Human life is human life. Should we stop paying taxes because the military kills innocent civilians? Should we protest the second amendment and boycott firearms manufacturers because handguns are used in murders? Should we tear down all the coal fired power plants because of the annual deaths they cause? Should we ban cars because of the number of drunk driver deaths every year?

Say the U.S. refused to cover abortion under a universal health care program – would you then be in favour of UHC?

 

[dmelosi]

dmelosi;8928428:

The immensity of wealth is not irrelevant according to the teaching of Christ.

1. In a democratic society it is impossible to prevent women from having abortions if they choose to do so.
2. Therefore it is not a valid reason for permitting poor people to be ill and die as the result of inadequate health care.

I don’t know where anyone said that immensity of wealth is not irrelevant, why are you changing the subject?

Are you arguing that Catholics should not fight to make this not part of our plan in U.S. or are you just trying to justify why you have in your country? Or both?

 

[endoentropism]

This is precisely what I’m talking about. There is a distinction between the objective and the subjective.

UHC is a universal good: it provides coverage for everyone regardless of their medical history, individual malady, what-have-you.

Abortions are a subjective evil: they are sought exclusively by individuals of their own free will.

Abortions are not mandatory. They are not mandated. Abortions are not guaranteed to occur within a UHC system, but a UHC system guarantees it will treat anyone who is sick. If a person seeks an abortion then it is a moral failing of them and their parents and their community – why should the poor and sick suffer because some individuals are unscrupulous?

Are you arguing that Catholics should not fight to make this not part of our plan in U.S. or are you just trying to justify why you have in your country? Or both?

I think Catholics should lead by example and do a good job instilling good morals and ethics in their children, not try to coerce the world world through prohibitive laws.

 

[dmelosi]

That’s an awful way to frame the topic at hand. I’m sorry, it really is. Human life is human life. Should we stop paying taxes because the military kills innocent civilians? Should we protest the second amendment and boycott firearms manufacturers because handguns are used in murders? Should we tear down all the coal fired power plants because of the annual deaths they cause? Should we ban cars because of the number of drunk driver deaths every year?

Say the U.S. refused to cover abortion under a universal health care program – would you then be in favour of UHC?

I agree it is an awful way to frame the topic at hand, a million deaths in the manner they kill is truly a blood bath.

I have addressed the military killing earlier.

Let’s add the other things contrary to our religion and yes I am in favor of UHC. But not in the same way you are.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

This is precisely what I’m talking about. There is a distinction between the objective and the subjective.

**UHC is a universal good: it provides coverage for everyone regardless of their medical history, individual malady, what-have-you.
**
Abortions are a subjective evil: they are sought exclusively by individuals of their own free will.

Abortions are not mandatory. They are not mandated. Abortions are not guaranteed to occur within a UHC system, but a UHC system guarantees it will treat anyone who is sick. If a person seeks an abortion then it is a moral failing of them and their parents and their community – why should the poor and sick suffer because some individuals are unscrupulous?

That is a false statement.

 

[dmelosi]

This is precisely what I’m talking about. There is a distinction between the objective and the subjective.

UHC is a universal good: it provides coverage for everyone regardless of their medical history, individual malady, what-have-you.

Abortions are a subjective evil: they are sought exclusively by individuals of their own free will.

Abortions are not mandatory. They are not mandated. Abortions are not guaranteed to occur within a UHC system, but a UHC system guarantees it will treat anyone who is sick. If a person seeks an abortion then it is a moral failing of them and their parents and their community – why should the poor and sick suffer because some individuals are unscrupulous?

You are leaving out the fact that you are being forced to pay to be a hitman.