Catholics VS Health Care in America: Morally Embarrassing

[anthony022071]

And that by itself in those cases is supposed to be adequate and compassionate?

It is adequate for the government. The government cannot be compassionate,and it is not the right vehicle for compassion. Families,neighbors, and churches are supposed to be compassionate,not the government,whose role is to maintain law and order. Why are you so naive as to want all people to be provided for by the government? Why would you give the government that kind of power over people’s lives?

 

[Gaber]

It is adequate for the government. The government cannot be compassionate,and it is not the right vehicle for compassion. Families,neighbors, and churches are supposed to be compassionate,not the government,whose role is to maintain law and order. Why are you so naive as to want all people to be provided for by the government? Why would you give the government that kind of power over people’s lives?

Theoreticaly, in a “democracy,” which our system isn’t really, you and I are the government. At leasty we claim that we are the government indirectly, by our voting for those who implement our wishes in our legislatures. So “We have met the enemy, and he is us!” whether you are a Republicrat or a Democlican. And far from having power over people’s lives, something you have no clue about, not having lived in mideaval times, for instance, or some other bloody repressive society, like imperial Rome, this is about making life simpler.

Why? because it is a principle of war that it is far more useful to disable someone and take five or more people out of action than it is to just kill them. So when someone is taken out by an illness, and the financial load goes on their family, that family can be destroyed and end up on the street and on the government rolls of all sorts of programs. We are the only industrial nation where that happens, and happens as a matter of course. It just hasn’t happened to you, yet, so you may be nieve about that dynamic.

Now as it is, we are paying twice as much for health care as the nearest most expensive nation, and geting less, and our life span is shortening and infant mortality rate is going up. In the mean time, our double economy, the time-for-wages, and the paper conomy, contrary to Adam Smith’s vision of balance, has succeeded in vacuuming cash from the lower levels to the very highest, somthing he said is a great danger in a capitalist system and needs to be balanced in order to avoid disaster. So we have grown into a situation in which the average S&P 500 CEO is making over $360 for each $ the average worker makes. There is some inequity there which could be addressed–and take care of all of this so that like other civilized countries who don’t put families on the street for getting sick, We could take care of our own. Or we could use about 1/49th of the military budget and do the same. Or some of both.

So yes, I’m nieve. I feel responsible for the welfare of the Country as a whole as distinct from the very few who use it to their advantage by means on law. I am active in our City and County government, and sit next to people who are paid to be there eight hours a day or more by companies to influence legistlaors and lawmakers. Now there is where there is “power over people’s lives,” and in advertising! And that is why so much investment goes to lobbying It is the most lucrative feild, yes? I have a job to do and a family to support and don’t make $360+ an hour, or $5K like one of them does,and can’t be ther to compete with that. Can you be ther and speak your peice? So I just want our government, that is to say us, to stop being stupid and feed the roots so the tree won’t die. the leaves are shiny enough, now, don’t you think?

But you don’t want to pay for that out of your pocket? Well, consider that you are, and will. Ask a Congressman who pays for their health care. Or the one who made a career out of railing against “obamacare” and then used it to get his daughter insurance. Or who pays for the isurance og the S&P 500 CEO’s insurance by way of elevated prices, paper economy, and bailuts that went right back into interest bearing instruments as they are more reliable than investing in a business, as was intended. And then, of course, we the people will pay in taxes for the destitute’s effect on the economy as they become depenmdent due to failure from medical expenses, among other things, instead of productive taxpayers who have not to worry about bankruptcy due to someoene;s illness.

Even now in europe they know now that austerity will only make things worse. Had the poor and the middle got all those bailouts instead of the bank, guess what? you would have benefited a few freeloaders, yes, but in the long run, there would have been buying power, thus demand, thus jobs, and the people who got it directly would have ended up with it anyway. Only difference is, it would have gone through the system and all those people on the dole now would have had work instead. You figure it out.

 

[anthony022071]

Theoreticaly, in a “democracy,” which our system isn’t really, you and I are the government. At leasty we claim that we are the government indirectly, by our voting for those who implement our wishes in our legislatures. So “We have met the enemy, and he is us!” whether you are a Republicrat or a Democlican. And far from having power over people’s lives, something you have no clue about, not having lived in mideaval times, for instance, or some other bloody repressive society, like imperial Rome, this is about making life simpler.

You don’t have to live under an repressive government to recognize when your government is tending toward tyranny. There is also a difference between the government repressing the people in general and society itself wanting to repress certain kinds of people and immoral behavior.

And the governments of mediveal times were not all repressive of human rights - certainly not in the manner of modern tyrannies. People had more of a sense of natural law and the proper duties of government,and the Church protected the natural rights of the commoners. Governments did not try to put into practice or support immoral utilitarian ideas which violate everyone’s natural rights and the natural social order. The only philosophical ideas of governance that were commonly taught were those of the Catholic Church,St.Augustine,Aristotle and Cicero.

Why? because it is a principle of war that it is far more useful to disable someone and take five or more people out of action than it is to just kill them.

That analogy doesn’t apply to what we are talking about.

So when someone is taken out by an illness, and the financial load goes on their family, that family can be destroyed and end up on the street and on the government rolls of all sorts of programs. We are the only industrial nation where that happens, and happens as a matter of course. It just hasn’t happened to you, yet, so you may be nieve about that dynamic.

No,it doesn’t happen “as a matter of course”. It is very rare for entire families to become homeless because a parent dies. Children are not just helpless dependents,they also learn to work and provide for themselves. Families are not isolated from receiving help from neighbors and churches,they live in a society where there are many people who are willing to help them. And government health care is no guarantee that a parent’s life will be saved or that families will not become homeless. The government will deny and delay and ration treatment to people to minimize costs because it does not feel morally obliged to serve its customers well. It does not have a personal sense of obligation to its customers,and it cannot be held accoutable for bad service by those it serves or be put out of business,like private businesses can.

 

[Gaber]

You don’t have to live under an repressive government to recognize when your government is tending toward tyranny. There is also a difference between the government repressing the people in general and society itself wanting to repress certain kinds of people and immoral behavior.

You have no expereintiareferent for tyranny, I would guess, or you would be incapable of making that statement with our Government as a reference, save perhaps in its treatment of other Countries. And who is the “society itself wanting to repress certain kinds of people and immoral behavior?” would that be the members of our Church in this Country, or “Christians” in general, or who? Are yoou implying a need for a theocracy, our theocracy?

And the governments of mediveal times were not all repressive of human rights - certainly not in the manner of modern tyrannies. People had more of a sense of natural law and the proper duties of government,and the Church protected the natural rights of the commoners. Governments did not try to put into practice or support immoral utilitarian ideas which violate everyone’s natural rights and the natural social order. The only philosophical ideas of governance that were commonly taught were those of the Catholic Church,St.Augustine,Aristotle and Cicero.

Ionder how deeply yu have read and considered the implications of what passed as print befo your eyes. I think you have created a pious dream picture of the Church and govrnments of any time between now and sevberal thousand years ago. Try again.

That analogy doesn’t apply to what we are talking about.

Actually, it does. te prcentage of floks receiving the vacuumed funds from the financial system, consciously or not, are waging a war of extraction leaving a wake of destruction on the planet measured in the colapse of systems economic, ecologig, and social. How does that not pertain?

No,it doesn’t happen “as a matter of course”. It is very rare for entire families to become homeless because a parent dies. Children are not just helpless dependents,they also learn to work and provide for themselves. Families are not isolated from receiving help from neighbors and churches,they live in a society where there are many people who are willing to help them. And government health care is no guarantee that a parent’s life will be saved or that families will not become homeless. The government will deny and delay and ration treatment to people to minimize costs because it does not feel morally obliged to serve its customers well. It does not have a personal sense of obligation to its customers,and it cannot be held accoutable for bad service by those it serves or be put out of business,like private businesses can. sorry to pop your bubble, but it does happen here with regular frequency, whereas in other industrial countries at least that factor doesn’t cause homelessnes or drastic loss. You are nievely optimistic about how well charity works, as much as there is of that. Have you seen the stats on declining contributions to such organizatios? Please get back to me after you have done some serious research and replace your opinions with it. Thanks

 

[levinas12]

In the US, what % of the general population are suffering or dying because they cannot afford to pay for health care? How would you even be able to track this?

 

[Gaber]

In the US, what %…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_StatesThe U.S. Census Bureau reported that 49.9 million residents, 16.3% of the population, were uninsured in 2010 (up from 49.0 million residents, 16.1% of the population, in 2009).[1][2] According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the United States spent more on health care per capita ($7,146), and more on health care as % of its GDP (15.2%), than any other nation in 2008.[3] The United States had the 4th highest level of government health care spending per capita ($3,426), behind three countries with higher levels of GDP per capita: Monaco, Luxembourg, and Norway.[3] A 2001 study in five states found that medical debt contributed to 46.2% of all personal bankruptcies & in 2007, 62.1% of filers for bankruptcies claimed high medical expenses.[4] Since then, health costs and the numbers of uninsured and underinsured have increased.[5]

umc-gbcs.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=frLJK2PKLqF&b=2954191&ct=8104619&notoc=1
In a democracy, our duty to our neighbor merges with the duties that the Hebrew scriptures assign to government: The prophet Ezekiel denounced the leaders of ancient Israel whose failure of responsible government included failure to provide health care: “You have not strengthened the weak, you have not healed the sick, you have not bound up the injured, you have not brought back the strayed, you have not sought the lost, but with force and harshness you have ruled them” (Ezekiel 34:4, NRSV). The United Methodist Church therefore affirms in our Social Principles (¶162V) health care as a basic human right and affirms the duty of government to assure health care for all.

In the United States today, however, fulfillment of this duty is thwarted by simultaneous crises of access, quality & cost. The result of these crises is injustice to the most vulnerable, increased risk to health care consumers, and waste of scarce public and private resources.

Access Barriers are an Injustice to the Most Vulnerable

In today’s United States, health-care access is disproportionately afforded to the affluent, the employees of government and large corporations, the very poor, and many receiving adequate pensions plus Medicare. Forty-seven million Americans are uninsured, largely the self-employed, recently unemployed, middle income and working poor. Lack of health-care access affects minorities disparately, and the results of the devastating expense of a long-term or terminal illness, inadequate care in general, and the extraordinary cost of insurance all contribute to keeping many minorities in the poverty cycle, dependent on welfare and other forms of assistance, and imprisoned in struggling and dangerous communities.

benton.org/initiatives/broadband_benefits/action_plan/health_careHealth Care
America’s health care system is in crisis. The cost of health care soars out of control. Nearly 50 million Americans, including 8 million children, live without health insurance.36 In 2006, U.S. health care expenditures grew 6.7 percent to $2.1 trillion, or $7,026 per person, and accounted for 16 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), greater than that of any other nation. Growth in health care expenditures is projected to rise 6.7 percent per year, far faster than wages, until the year 2017, when it will consume 19.5 percent of GDP.37

Yet Americans are not living as long as citizens of many other developed nations that spend far less on health care. Average life expectancy at birth in the United States is 78.1 years. In Great Britain, where medical costs are just 8.3 percent of GDP and the annual per capita expenditure on health care is slightly over half that in the United States, life expectancy at birth is actually higher - 79 years. In France, life expectancy at birth is now 80.3 years, yet the health care share of GDP is just 11.1 percent. In Japan, health care makes up only 8 percent of GDP and the average life expectancy at birth is 82.1 years.38

Many assert that Americans pay more for health care, yet are in fact less healthy. Consider that:
•The U.S. infant mortality rate is 6.9 deaths per 1,000 live births, twice as high as Japan or Sweden.
•About 70 percent of deaths and health costs in the United States are attributable to chronic diseases which are largely preventable. Yet, only half of recommended preventive services are provided to adults.
•The United States has fewer practicing physicians and nurses per 1,000 people than comparable countries.
•The obesity rate among adults is 30.6 percent, higher than any other developed nation, and 21 percent higher than second-place Mexico.39
•Obesity among young people is near epidemic levels, causing large spikes in the incidence among children of high blood pressure, high cholesterol and painful joint conditions, and type 2 diabetes.40

Telecommunications technology such as broadband offers a tremendous opportunity to make America healthier and allow Americans to live longer, while at the same time saving our nation what some have estimated to be as much as $165 billion a year, enough to insure 37 million individuals, more than three-quarters of all uninsured Americans.41 Two of the most promising telecommunications applications that are already improving health care while at the same time reducing costs are “telehealth” & digital health information technology. Widespread adoption of these technologies will significantly stimulate both the build-out, and demand, for universal, affordable, & robust broadband.

Etc., etc., etc., etc.,… etc., etc., etc.,

 

[Ubenedictus]

Etc., etc., etc., etc.,… etc., etc., etc.,

i particularly liked the methodist part of the quote, it show concern for the sick and dying which is a must for xtain, but it forgot to talk about the financing of the death of the babies, isnt that part of the xtain message?
Ubenedictus

 

[Gaber]

i particularly liked the methodist part of the quote, it show concern for the sick and dying which is a must for xtain, but it forgot to talk about the financing of the death of the babies, isnt that part of the xtain message?
Ubenedictus

Without health care we have, as quoted above, an increasing infant mortality rate, hence dead babies and mothers as well. We also have, as is shown in times and places where abortion is not legal, the deaths of many babies anyway, and the impaired health of the mothers who survive, and the expeneses of society entailed in that.

You can be hypothetically black and white on the issue if you like, but where would you be in another pair of shoes? Are you not paying, one way or another, for the results of those horrific illegal abortions anyway? “If she’s gunna, she’s gunna,” as they say. You can’t moralize for someone who you believe to be your moral inferior, unless you userp God’s prerogative. Many on here seem to be doing that and going off half cocked. Yes. Look up the origin of that phrase.

 

[levinas12]

Etc., etc., etc., etc.,… etc., etc., etc.,

You raise many good points.

But, for the time being, I’d like to concentrate on the uninsured.

Is there a correlation between the number of uninsured and the unemployment level? If so, wouldn’t an expansion of jobs in the private sector help to reduce the number of the uninsured?

What % of the uninsured can afford to pay for health care, or for health care insurance?
What % of the uninsured could sign up for Medicaid or CHIP but don’t? What % of the uninsured are illegal immigrants?

 

[Gaber]

You raise many good points.

But, for the time being, I’d like to concentrate on the uninsured.

Is there a correlation between the number of uninsured and the unemployment level? If so, wouldn’t an expansion of jobs in the private sector help to reduce the number of the uninsured?

What % of the uninsured can afford to pay for health care, or for health care insurance?
What % of the uninsured could sign up for Medicaid or CHIP but don’t? What % of the uninsured are illegal immigrants?

No “buts” about it, that kinda wha tall that’s about, no? It sounds like you are doing two things: a) trying to get informatioon behind an agenda you might have, and b) trying to get others to do your homework. I did a bunch. Your turn. So far it looks like you are trying to set up a straw man. So what’s up?

 

[Ubenedictus]

Without health care we have, as quoted above, an increasing infant mortality rate, hence dead babies and mothers as well. We also have, as is shown in times and places where abortion is not legal, the deaths of many babies anyway, and the impaired health of the mothers who survive, and the expeneses of society entailed in that.

You can be hypothetically black and white on the issue if you like, but where would you be in another pair of shoes? Are you not paying, one way or another, for the results of those horrific illegal abortions anyway? “If she’s gunna, she’s gunna,” as they say. You can’t moralize for someone who you believe to be your moral inferior, unless you userp God’s prerogative. Many on here seem to be doing that and going off half cocked. Yes. Look up the origin of that phrase.

yeah and a good way to reduce the mortality rate is by providing good jobs. Im not paying in anyway for anyone illegal abortion, which theory is that? So im clear im not against health care but im certainly against abortion, it certainly isnt basic healthcare. You said ‘if she’s gonna she gona’ right? Then let her do it with her money, why drag everybody to her sin?
Ubenedictus

 

[ReapReason]

yeah and a good way to reduce the mortality rate is by providing good jobs. Im not paying in anyway for anyone illegal abortion, which theory is that? So im clear im not against health care but im certainly against abortion, it certainly isnt basic healthcare. You said ‘if she’s gonna she gona’ right? Then let her do it with her money, why drag everybody to her sin?
Ubenedictus

The government cannot provide Jobs, since it is the market, supply and demand, which generates the need for workers. It is clear that not all human needs,especially in respect of health, can be left to the changing nature of the market place. Not all employers are going to be happy to pay somebody’s medical bills by freewill.

Tax is necessary since not all people can get what you call “good jobs”

 

[Gaber]

yeah and a good way to reduce the mortality rate is by providing good jobs. Im not paying in anyway for anyone illegal abortion, which theory is that? So im clear im not against health care but im certainly against abortion, it certainly isnt basic healthcare. You said ‘if she’s gonna she gona’ right? Then let her do it with her money, why drag everybody to her sin?
Ubenedictus

The point is, U, that you are paying for it, one way or another. And if yu are so hot on jobs, remember when you vote that statistically in 80% of the time (23 D administrative years to 28 R,) the Dems created 42 million and the R’s 24, even given more time. And that happened factoring in that in eight years Bush lost 600,000 jobs for us, and Obama’s + had to overcome that. Here’s an instructive link:

ibtimes.com/articles/296272/20120209/jobs-presidents-job-creation-clinton-fdr-lbj.htm?page=all

and

thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/10/which-party-creates-more-jobs.html

 

[levinas12]

No “buts” about it, that kinda wha tall that’s about, no? It sounds like you are doing two things: a) trying to get informatioon behind an agenda you might have, and b) trying to get others to do your homework. I did a bunch. Your turn. So far it looks like you are trying to set up a straw man. So what’s up?

It’s necessary to do unpack the data.

The uninsured are not a homogeneous group. Included are those who can afford to pay for health insurance, or even pay directly for health care. Then there are those who qualify for Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program. There are also the short-term uninsured. Finally, there are the uninsured people who are in the country illlegally.

Once these subsets are excluded, the number of the uninsured is significantly reduced. Some estimates peg that number to be about 10-15 million (less than 5% of the population).

Once the economy rebounds, even that residual number will decrease.

Clearly, insurance reforms can address this limited number of uninsured. For example, states can permit cheaper streamlined policies which cover only hospital, outpatient and physician services, not the expensive policies overloaded with 50 mandates. Catastrophic insurance and health savings accounts could be made available.

I should mention that, before Obamacare, the Federal government in the US was already providing disproportionate share hospital payments and bad debt adjustments to cover the costs of the uninsured.

So why is a new single payer government-run system necessary?

 

[JDaniel]

Can we imagine, for a few minutes, that all of us conceded to a universal health care system. Then, let’s concede that the funding for the system was ordered by law to be unrestricted. Then, let’s say that at some future time, the country simply ran out of money because the health care system took it all. That all businesses were drained because purchasing went down to nearly nothing, that government coffers were drained because there existed no more revenue base that had money they could wrest away, and that only hospitals and health care practitioners found themselves flush with cash, but there was nothing - outside of the hospital - for them to buy, as those businesses were effectively and actually out of business. I think everyone would agree that this would not be a good scenario, right?

Questions: is it a possible scenario? Have similar scenarios ever happened before on this planet? How would the ruler of the world prevent this from happening?

God bless,
jd

 

[levinas12]

It’s necessary to do unpack the data.

Meant to say:

“It’s necessary to do analysis and unpack the data”

 

[levinas12]

Can we imagine, for a few minutes, that all of us conceded to a universal health care system. Then, let’s concede that the funding for the system was ordered by law to be unrestricted. Then, let’s say that at some future time, the country simply ran out of money because the health care system took it all. That all businesses were drained because purchasing went down to nearly nothing, that government coffers were drained because there existed no more revenue base that had money they could wrest away, and that only hospitals and health care practitioners found themselves flush with cash, but there was nothing - outside of the hospital - for them to buy, as those businesses were effectively and actually out of business. I think everyone would agree that this would not be a good scenario, right?

Questions: is it a possible scenario? Have similar scenarios ever happened before on this planet? How would the ruler of the world prevent this from happening?

God bless,
jd

Something to ponder …

 

[levinas12]

Consider Medicare. This is a program that many people think is self-financing, e.g., through dedicated payroll taxes and premiums. Not true. Much of Medicare is paid for through general revenues, i.e., income taxes and other unassigned taxes. Even drawdowns on the Part A Medicare “trust fund” are, for the most part, transfers of general revenues from other accounts in the Treasury.

As these general revenues are sucked up to pay for Medicare, in order to finance essential activities like defense, the government has to borrow colossal amounts of money, e.g., from China.

I should add, it doesn’t help that Medicare is run by politicians who can’t bring themselves to limit spending.

 

[levinas12]

Consider Medicaid. This is a program that has a built-in constraint, i.e., states have to put up some of their own money to match the Federal share. Because states must maintain balanced budgets, the “state share” was intended to function like a cap on expenditures.

Well, what do you think happened over the years? States became very ingenious in concocting phony “state shares” (provider taxes and donations).

Couple this with a greatly enhanced Federal match and the addition of 15 million to the rolls, courtesy of Obamacare, and you have a real behemoth.

.

 

[Gaber]

It’s necessary to do unpack the data.

The uninsured are not a homogeneous group. Included are those who can afford to pay for health insurance, or even pay directly for health care. Then there are those who qualify for Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program. There are also the short-term uninsured. Finally, there are the uninsured people who are in the country illlegally.

Once these subsets are excluded, the number of the uninsured is significantly reduced. Some estimates peg that number to be about 10-15 million (less than 5% of the population).

Once the economy rebounds, even that residual number will decrease.

Clearly, insurance reforms can address this limited number of uninsured. For example, states can permit cheaper streamlined policies which cover only hospital, outpatient and physician services, not the expensive policies overloaded with 50 mandates. Catastrophic insurance and health savings accounts could be made available.

I should mention that, before Obamacare, the Federal government in the US was already providing disproportionate share hospital payments and bad debt adjustments to cover the costs of the uninsured.

So why is a new single payer government-run system necessary?

You have unpacked some datat that allows you to not like Obamacare or single payer government run system. You do not account for the dynamics of accumulating wealth under a false Adam Smith capitalism, nor do you account for the simplicity of simply having all health care simply taken care of in a non-competative system. And whether or not there are freeloaders on the system such as all of Congress, the overall benefit of having a healthy society would be far less expensive if, as Adam Smith himself advised, we use some sort of balancing mechanism to regulate the inevitable flow in a capitalist sytem–with two distinct economies–of money to just a few people at the top who have the power by law to stack odds astonishingly in their favor. Don’t believe me? Check out “The L curve.” Even if it is exagerated, which I think it is in favor of what the average income is, it is pretty staggering. And how many multi-billion dollar corporations don’t pay tax? And what is the history of the tax curve relative to income? And pay scale relative to productivity and who gets the difference lately? Jeeze, people, it might be good for us to go back to economics 101, yes? And isn’t it God who gives the increase? How about factoring that in? That might mean a bit of co-operation on our part.

And despite Mr. Daniels hypothetically running out our funds, money is a fiction which is adjustable to the needs of the moment. You just have to want to, like the light bulb in the joke. Recall that during our own Great Depression, some communities “made” their own scrip and survived well enough compared to many. And they are doing that in Greece, now and have in other places, as well as using other systems. But they don’t advertise that, do they. In fact they busted the last attemt to do that on a large scale.

So what y’all are barking about is your swallowed hook, line, and sinker about how things “are.” If you don’t like them, stop your god-damned blaming and get off your tookas and do something useful. And let the few, like congressmen and the indolent poor ride, if they are such a paltry number. Let’s get on with business. Good grief.