A
aspawloski4th
Guest
No just more willing and pragmatic.
- Status
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
What you do with the money that doesnt go to taxes, I could care less what you do with it. Heck I’d prefer you do with it what you want. It’s good for the overall econemy.
R
royal_archer
Guest
I don’t have the moral right to put my money ahead of my health? are you saying that I am moraly obligated to get the biggest safest car regardless of cost? I hope not.
You seem to be completely missing the third factor. There is health, money and integrity. I have no proplem giving needy money for their health (up to the point it endagers my families health) but that doesn’t mean I am going to rob a bank to get money to pay someones health care costs.
My arguement has never been against helping others, it has ony been against using sinful methods to attain that money.
Do you believe that postponing a earthly death is worth committing a mortal sin and experiencing eternal death?
R
royal_archer
Guest
Yeah, there is a history there of “pragmatic” solutions. but if they use moral and ethical means to achieve results, more power to them. but ui have yet to hear of ways they actually reduced costs.
R
royal_archer
Guest
Just as long as you get your %50 percent cut up front right?
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
Ofcourse I don’t and it isn’t happeneing in Pathia’s case either. By that logic heart transplants would be morally wrong. By that logic the poor shouldn’t get flu immunization then.
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
Hmm if National health care goes through you will be getting your 50% cut also.
R
royal_archer
Guest
No if it goes through 65% of my income will go to the government then to the free loaders and I will still have to pay my own bills.
R
royal_archer
Guest
What??
aside from the canibalization aspects, there is nothing morraly wrong with getting a heart transplant as long as you do not try to fund it with immoral means. If the poor can aford shots, or their employers pay for them (reduction of lost work days more than pays for the shots) or if a charity want s to pay for themor if a buisness funds them as a marketing ploy or a variety of other moral methods is used then those shots are moral. If someone robs a liquor store to get the money to pay for a shot it is wrong.
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
Are you the final authority on whats moral?
E
Ella
Guest
In Germany there are standard prices for everything. This saves tons in administrative costs. Private hospitals and doctors. Private insurers - called ‘sickness funds’. Employers pay part of it, just like here. There are co-pays. But if you lose your job, you do not lose your insurance. It’s scaled on income. I know that’s going to be your sticking point. But we scale coverage costs here based on how sick you are - vs. your ability to pay. And the income scale costs less per capita than the sickness scale we are using.
It’s not perfect- of course - one problem they are having is that German doctors make less money than U.S. doctors.
We can learn from the health care systems of other countries and devise the best possible plan.
E
Ella
Guest
Hmmm, so now you’re saying the un-insurable should buck up and suffer because it’s a ‘personal interest’. And that by doing so they are comparable to the Revolutionary war soldiers marching barefoot in the snow. And if they want coverage they should leave the United States. Or start their own charities.
Royal Archer, I am just curious - do you work in the insurance industry?
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
Too bad my grandmother who is a retired nurse , now has Altzheimers. She would rip into him just like she did with the quacks that sometime practiced medicie on the hospital floor she worked on. She was trained by the nuns during WWII. If he lost his insurance and had 6 painful kidneysones in him like I once did I’d bet be would be seeing a big opinion shift on healthcare.Hmmm, so now you’re saying the un-insurable should buck up and suffer because it’s a ‘personal interest’. And that by doing so they are comparable to the Revolutionary war soldiers marching barefoot in the snow. And if they want coverage they should leave the United States. Or start their own charities.
Royal Archer, I am just curious - do you work in the insurance industry?
E
Ella
Guest
Remember that book I recommended, “Sick: The Untold Story of America’s Health Care Crisis” by Jonathan Cohn? It tells the history of health insurance in the U.S. Very interesting reading.
Blue Cross plans were the first community coverage plans in the U.S.
Originally Blue Cross plans were non-profit, and guaranteed issue. If you were in the plan, and got sick, you were covered. The premiums of the group covered the costs of the sick.
The reason this worked is because the groups were large. With enough members paying in, the costs of the few sick were coverable.
Then the for-profit insurance companies, like Prudential, which prior to this considered health care too unprofitable to cover, saw the success of the Blue Cross plans and got involved in covering health care. They started offering cheaper premiums based on a person’s health status - a process called experience rating.
Blue Cross plans couldn’t compete - the for-profit companies were undercutting their premiums. So they had to take up the same experience rating system to stay afloat.
“…the insurance industry made no excuses for its general approach of basing insurance availability and prices on risk. On the contrary, its leaders and allies explicitly rejected the egalitarian ethos that was the foundation of Europe’s national health care plans and the early Blue Cross programs, saying the purpose of insurance was merely to spread the costs of expected medical care over time- and only within groups of people with a relatively similar likelihood of needing it.” pg 34-35.
Blue Cross plans were the first community coverage plans in the U.S.
Originally Blue Cross plans were non-profit, and guaranteed issue. If you were in the plan, and got sick, you were covered. The premiums of the group covered the costs of the sick.
The reason this worked is because the groups were large. With enough members paying in, the costs of the few sick were coverable.
Then the for-profit insurance companies, like Prudential, which prior to this considered health care too unprofitable to cover, saw the success of the Blue Cross plans and got involved in covering health care. They started offering cheaper premiums based on a person’s health status - a process called experience rating.
Blue Cross plans couldn’t compete - the for-profit companies were undercutting their premiums. So they had to take up the same experience rating system to stay afloat.
“…the insurance industry made no excuses for its general approach of basing insurance availability and prices on risk. On the contrary, its leaders and allies explicitly rejected the egalitarian ethos that was the foundation of Europe’s national health care plans and the early Blue Cross programs, saying the purpose of insurance was merely to spread the costs of expected medical care over time- and only within groups of people with a relatively similar likelihood of needing it.” pg 34-35.
E
Ella
Guest
Are you sure your grandmother with Alzheimer’s is unable to work? Because she might be one of those free-loaders that is making our system so unmanagable…
OK OK I’ll stop. Antagonizing each other is no way to discuss something, and I do think that this can be a discussion.
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
Well she is 87, and a couple years ago when she was at my sister’s wedding she didn’t know why she was there. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm . She was forced against her will to retire from nursing at 70, becuase of rules. Part of what she missed was putting young whipper snapper doctors in their place.
C
Contarini
Guest
No, there is no such teaching. The Catholic Church does not teach in such vague terms. There is no absolute thing called “large government” to be resisted. The Catholic Church teaches that governmental functions should be carried out on as local a basis as possible, and I agree with this teaching enthusiastically. I wish the Catholic Church applied it more thoroughly in its own polity.
I agree.
I think this is naive. There are all kinds of ways in which large corporations control us through marketing, through controlling the economic conditions under which we live, etc. And of course big business has often had a huge influence on government.
OK. I withdraw my objections. You are consistent.
I think that Obama is preferable to Bush except for the issue of abortion largely because he uses government in less coercive ways, by and large. But I have no problems saying that both of them–and indeed the modern U.S. government generally–engages in a level of centralized control that is very unhealthy, and that any health care reform passed is likely to suffer from that sickness.
Not in the least. You said that Catholics should resist “large government.” Any government with nuclear weapons is pretty darn large.Weapons of mass destruction is a totally different subject. Are you trying to side-track me…
Edwin
F
fultonfish
Guest
P
pathia
Guest
Every time I’ve needed an MRI to keep an eye on my tumors, the wait has been 45-75days, here in the states.
R
royal_archer
Guest
No, God is.And he gave us the 10 commandments. To which Jesus added a few more commandments. What I have said is in allignment with those commandments.
- Status