Has the Church always supported universal healthcare?

[Ender]

Why is that the only remedy? Why can’t we think to increase it to a maximum for everyone?

Because it is simply not possible. Our limits may be higher than those of Bangladesh, but we have limits nonetheless. As a practical matter, unlimited health care cannot be provided by any government. Rationing is unavoidable, the only question is the manner in which it will be done. The NHS does it by increasing wait times … and refusing treatment. For example (from their own statistics):
Patients still waiting for a 1st outpatient appointment following a GP referral
For (e.g.) the London area, only 43% of patients were seen in less than five weeks (123,114 of 286,627).

Not living in England I don’t really know anything about the NHS but perhaps you can help explain these statistics:

June 2008: Decision to admit -1,209,177 … Patients admitted - 1,069,193

So - does that mean in that month alone almost 140,000 patients were refused treatment (and this does not include the over 270,000 Removals, Deferrals, and Suspensions)?

performance.doh.gov.uk/waitingtimes/index.htm

Oh, Jesus would have used accounting to view an economy over human life?

No, he would have left the things of Caesar for Caesar to figure out. Wishful thinking is no substitute for reality, and the reality is that it is irrational to believe that everyone can be given the same level of health care.

This is America and we most certainly have the resources.

Do we? Are our Christian obligations satisfied by helping only Americans? Isn’t everyone our neighbor? Why aren’t you calling for world wide universal health care? Isn’t that what Jesus would want?

The biggest majority of this discussion, nationwide, is about money and not about what’s morally right…

Demonizing your opponents is not actually an argument and adds nothing to the discussion.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Because it is simply not possible. Our limits may be higher than those of Bangladesh, but we have limits nonetheless. As a practical matter, unlimited health care cannot be provided by any government. Rationing is unavoidable, the only question is the manner in which it will be done. The NHS does it by increasing wait times … and refusing treatment. For example (from their own statistics):
Patients still waiting for a 1st outpatient appointment following a GP referral
For (e.g.) the London area, only 43% of patients were seen in less than five weeks (123,114 of 286,627).

Not living in England I don’t really know anything about the NHS but perhaps you can help explain these statistics:

June 2008: Decision to admit -1,209,177 … Patients admitted - 1,069,193

So - does that mean in that month alone almost 140,000 patients were refused treatment (and this does not include the over 270,000 Removals, Deferrals, and Suspensions)?

performance.doh.gov.uk/waitingtimes/index.htm
No, he would have left the things of Caesar for Caesar to figure out. Wishful thinking is no substitute for reality, and the reality is that it is irrational to believe that everyone can be given the same level of health care.
Do we? Are our Christian obligations satisfied by helping only Americans? Isn’t everyone our neighbor? Why aren’t you calling for world wide universal health care? Isn’t that what Jesus would want?
Demonizing your opponents is not actually an argument and adds nothing to the discussion.

Ender

Comparing what America can do in relation to third world countries does not justify what America could do for our people. Ever heard, ‘Charity begins at home?’ Let’s get started with home and work our way out, sharing and showing other countries how to accomplish this goal. Britain has accomplished it, yet America is not interested in seeing how it works. Why? Because of a loss of money to the extreme rich.

We have people who do not get to see a doctor period. There is hope in a 5 week appointment. Another thing to consider, how many doctors does Britain have compared to America?

Like it or not, in America WE ARE Caesar! It is for us to pay and figure out. The problem is, the rich have figured it out and do not want to change the status quo.

Oh, it’s wishful thinking, but Jesus wouldn’t want us to tackle healthcare for everyone, or for the sake of risking our economy? That’s what arguments against universal healthcare sound like to me.

If it sounds like demonizing to have these discussions called ‘economy vs. healthcare’, then it is what it is. Economy = money, healthcare = quality of life, which should Christians be working for?

 

[Carlan]

Is it cynicism to expect that people will use more services when someone else is paying? Maybe, but if everyone was guaranteed universal access to hamburgers and milkshakes, I expect there would be even more consumption of them.

**I don’t know if the Holy See made a statement defending universal access to medical care or not. I’m not even sure what universal access to medical care means, or what the Holy See might propose in the way of particular national health care systems. **People in Moscow, Kansas have access to medical care, but not as easily as people in Wichita, Topeka or Kansas City. I’m not sure how one would equalize that access, or provide the same access worldwide, or if that should be the priority for the world economy.

I would imagine as a Catholic , If they made the comment, they would mean that it is the morally human thing to do for the world population. Peace , Carlan

 

[Ender]

Comparing what America can do in relation to third world countries does not justify what America could do for our people.

What matters is the nature of your arguments. You made generic, moral claims; I simply applied them differently but no less validly. They are your arguments. If they don’t stand up to scrutiny you need to find others.

Let’s get started with home and work our way out, sharing and showing other countries how to accomplish this goal. Britain has accomplished it…

No, Britain has not accomplished “it.” They have a universal system, true, but that says nothing about whether their system is better than ours. We, by the way, have a universal system as well: anyone can get medical care in the emergency room of any not-for-profit hospital.

yet America is not interested in seeing how it works. Why? Because of a loss of money to the extreme rich.

This is not an argument, it is just name calling, like a second grader calling someone a Do-Do Head.

We have people who do not get to see a doctor period.

Untrue.

There is hope in a 5 week appointment.

Yes, for those who were granted the right to see a doctor. Did you not notice the other statistic I provided showing that over 10% of those who’s cases were reviewed were not treated? (I’m not really sure what those figures mean so I’m open to a different explanation, but that’s what it seems to mean.)

Another thing to consider, how many doctors does Britain have compared to America?

The percentage of doctors available is another measure of the strength of a nation’s health care. Are you suggesting that we’re better than Britain in this area?

Like it or not, in America WE ARE Caesar! It is for us to pay and figure out.

Exactly. This is why the Church has no position on the subject of universal health care. This has been my position all along.

Oh, it’s wishful thinking, but Jesus wouldn’t want us to tackle healthcare for everyone, or for the sake of risking our economy?

Well, if you’re not concerned with the economy then you have no reason to oppose global universal health care. The only reason not to agitate for that is that it is too obviously impossible … but this is what I meant earlier about the nature of your arguments. Either we have to balance health care by what the economy can realistically provide or we ignore the economy and demand care for everyone without restriction. Clearly we can’t provide world wide care so: we have to create a system based not simply on what we would like to have but based on what we can afford to have.

Ender

 

[St_Francis]

Comparing what America can do in relation to third world countries does not justify what America could do for our people. Ever heard, ‘Charity begins at home?’ Let’s get started with home and work our way out, sharing and showing other countries how to accomplish this goal. Britain has accomplished it, yet America is not interested in seeing how it works. Why? Because of a loss of money to the extreme rich.

We have people who do not get to see a doctor period. There is hope in a 5 week appointment. Another thing to consider, how many doctors does Britain have compared to America?

Like it or not, in America WE ARE Caesar! It is for us to pay and figure out. The problem is, the rich have figured it out and do not want to change the status quo.

Oh, it’s wishful thinking, but Jesus wouldn’t want us to tackle healthcare for everyone, or for the sake of risking our economy? That’s what arguments against universal healthcare sound like to me.

If it sounds like demonizing to have these discussions called ‘economy vs. healthcare’, then it is what it is. Economy = money, healthcare = quality of life, which should Christians be working for?

Prodigal Son,
The reason we are even having this discussion nationwide is that people are indeed concerned. They are thinking about the morality of a lack among certain people. In fact, that is what caused us some years ago to institute government-funded insurance for the poor.

I am sure that if you asked anyone this question: If we ccould afford as a nation to pay for everyone’s health care, should we do it? that they would say yes. The problem is that we simply cannot do that. So the current discussion is revolving around how best to delover health to the most people in the most economically efficient way possible.

Part of that equation would involve rationing. A lot of people do not want to have a system in which health care is rationed by a bureaucracy, because then there would be simply rules which would apply to all cases, and people want to take individual situations into account. Some look at what is happening wet eutanasia and see that that could take even the decision for life out of the individual’s hands.

The US is rivaled only by Australia in terms of charitable giving (and oddly enough it is those who are conservative who tend to give more). It is not the people don’t want to help the poor. The disagreement is not whether or not to help, but what the best way to help is.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What matters is the nature of your arguments. You made generic, moral claims; I simply applied them differently but no less validly. They are your arguments. If they don’t stand up to scrutiny you need to find others.

It seems you are saying, if we can’t do it for the world, we shouldn’t attempt it at all. Just because a third world country doesn’t have it, America is off the hook on having to do it.

We should be doing it for everyone, including our neighbors. To start with, let’s start at home. We have become the world’s police, why not the world’s healthcare provider?

No, Britain has not accomplished “it.” They have a universal system, true, but that says nothing about whether their system is better than ours. We, by the way, have a universal system as well: anyone can get medical care in the emergency room of any not-for-profit hospital.

They can be stabilized in an American emergency room. If a condition is identified that requires a specialist, they are on their own to secure further healthcare. Specialist have no obligation to take the treatment on without payment and many require payment up front. So, no our systems lacks what the British have accomplished.

Again, you use not-for-profit hospitals. Please provide a list of those hospitals. The county hospitals are not non-profit. (I am employed through a county hospital.)

This is not an argument, it is just name calling, like a second grader calling someone a Do-Do Head.

The doctors, drug companies, insurance companies, etc. are very wealthy and they have enough for the lobbyists needed to secure the legislation to protect their money.

This argument is based on money. Most who argue against healthcare do not want the government to take tax money from them to assure a quality healthcare for everyone.

Untrue.

Sorry, but it is true. If you are diagnosed with a deteriorating condition and need a specialist and you do not have insurance, or the money to pay, you can be refused further treatment.

Yes, for those who were granted the right to see a doctor. Did you not notice the other statistic I provided showing that over 10% of those who’s cases were reviewed were not treated? (I’m not really sure what those figures mean so I’m open to a different explanation, but that’s what it seems to mean.)
The percentage of doctors available is another measure of the strength of a nation’s health care. Are you suggesting that we’re better than Britain in this area?

What is the percentage of non-treated in America?

Depends, what is our population compared to Britain.

Exactly. This is why the Church has no position on the subject of universal health care. This has been my position all along.

The Church does have a position on healthcare and calls on all nations to provide it for the people. Of course that seems to be open to interpretation for those who oppose the idea of healthcare for all if it costs ME anything. We have become a nation of ‘me, me, me’.

Well, if you’re not concerned with the economy then you have no reason to oppose global universal health care. The only reason not to agitate for that is that it is too obviously impossible … but this is what I meant earlier about the nature of your arguments. Either we have to balance health care by what the economy can realistically provide or we ignore the economy and demand care for everyone without restriction. Clearly we can’t provide world wide care so: we have to create a system based not simply on what we would like to have but based on what we can afford to have.

Ender

I don’t place the economy over healthcare for all. If it costs more taxes, and it would ask the French or the British, then fine.

Would you please show me where Christ said, ‘if it seems impossible to accomplish what I’ve taught the world, you don’t have to worry about it?’, or ‘if it costs too much money, don’t worry about it?’

 

[JimG]

Jim - Are you suggesting that if someone is dying that we should cut back spending on their care because “what’s the point” - I thought you were pro-life!

NHS doctors aren’t going to order every possible investigation and every possible treatment. It’s illogical to suggest so because they’re still professionals, they’ll do what they can while holding up the reputation of doctors.

Yes, I am pro-life. What I am suggesting is that there is a time when hospice care or palliative care is the better option over continued high-cost treatment which has no chance of success.

I am equally opposed to throwing in the towel when a patient is not terminal.

I know of instances where a patient with terminal cancer has continued to be treated at a cost of thousands of dollars with zero chance of cure. The patient may have gained two months of life. Hospice care would have been less painful and more humane.

By no means do I advocate giving up on care when it has a chance of success. I don’t even like the wording of most living wills because they are too tilted toward the death side of the ledger.

It seems to me that what has been lost is what might be called medical common sense. There is so much legal concern over written directives that docs are sometimes afraid to simply take the medically correct action without written backup. And families are really not always in a good position to say anything other than ‘yes, do whatever you can.’

My reference is not to the NHS, since I don’t know how they handle these sorts of situations.

 

[Ender]

It seems you are saying, if we can’t do it for the world, we shouldn’t attempt it at all.

Not at all. I am simply pointing out an inconsistency in your argument. You can’t claim that we should ignore economic reality when it comes to providing health care for the US and also claim we can’t ignore economic reality to justify not providing health care for the world. If economic reality matters then the US is constrained in the level of health care it can provide to its own citizens. If it doesn’t matter then you would be calling for us to provide health care to the world but since you’re not doing that you clearly recognize that we must base the levels of health care on what is economically doable.

So, no our systems lacks what the British have accomplished.

This isn’t at all clear to me:

• In 2007, the Commonwealth Fund found that 15% of the public agreed with the statement that “our healthcare system [NHS] has so much wrong with it that we need to completely rebuild it” and 57% agreed that “there are some good things in our healthcare system but fundamental changes are needed to make it work better.”*

This argument is based on money. Most who argue against healthcare do not want the government to take tax money from them to assure a quality healthcare for everyone.

You have no idea whether this assertion is valid or not. You don’t know what “most” people want; this is another bogeyman argument.

The Church does have a position on healthcare and calls on all nations to provide it for the people.

Show us where the Church says this.

Would you please show me where Christ said, ‘if it seems impossible to accomplish what I’ve taught the world, you don’t have to worry about it?’, or ‘if it costs too much money, don’t worry about it?’

Ah, so you are calling for the US to provide global universal health care then? Given that we apparently don’t have to be concerned with whether it is an impossible task, why would you not?

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Ah, so you are calling for the US to provide global universal health care then? Given that we apparently don’t have to be concerned with whether it is an impossible task, why would you not?

Ender

Look, no spins here. I believe in people caring for people, even if it means more taxes, because that what Christ taught. He never taught to worry about the economy, or more specifically money, over another person’s welfare.

We can’t start attempting to care for the world, until we start caring for ourselves. Through example, others may follow. For those that lack the money, or technology, we should be stepping in to help. It seems to be a useless argument here though, especially with those who are more concerned with money than doing the right thing. If you think I’m wrong, show me where Christ put an economy, or money, ahead of other people’s well being?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Ender

Take time to explain the reasons you do not support a national, or universal, healthcare system?

 

[Carlan]

Take time to explain the reasons you do not support a national, or universal, healthcare system?

Yes, let’s hear it !
Peace, Carlan

 

[LemonAndLime]

L&L,
How do people who are becoming doctors pay for their education?

They tend to use money to pay for it. Student loans which they pay back once they’ve finished their studies, it comes straight out of their salary. Why?

 

[LemonAndLime]

England has a population of about 51 million. The U.S. has a population of about 300 million. That difference in scale alone would mean a much larger bureaucracy to manage a national healthcare system.

I have serious doubts about the ability of federal regulators to apply one size fits all solutions to the health care decisions of the nation, but that’s just me. Others may have more confidence in the ability of the bureaucracy; I don’t.

In the end, it’s still our money. The basis of all insurance is the pooling of risk because everybody won’t have the same calamity at the same time. It also means that some will pay more in premiums than they receive in benefits, while others will use more in benefits than they pay.

With auto insurance, nobody sets out to wreck their car or have it stolen just to make sure they can get some benefit from their insurance. But with health care, I suspect that everybody in a federal system is going to want to “get their money’s worth.” Because, after all, they’re paying taxes for it. Yet when it comes time to pay the doc and the hospital and the pharmacist and the MRI tech, nobody’s going to worry because at that point, it’s somebody else’s money. There’s no particular incentive to limit use of services.

And in the last six months of life, with a terminal illness, there’s more incentive to say, “do everything; spare no expense.” Because you’re sure to get more than your money’s worth then. In the end, you’ll still be dead, after having used up a heck of a lot of taxpayer funds, i.e., other people’s money.

Wow, that’s really harsh. How can you suggest it would be a waste of money? Are you telling me that people in USA diagnosed with a terminal illness refuse healthcare? Refuse to spend money on it, themselves or their relatives?

Who is “you” in this situation? You have to remember, that in the UK, the professionals do not have to think about how much things cost. Whether a patient gets a treatment or a test is based on need only. Professionals do not think about money. I think your thought process is illogical.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Yes, I am pro-life. What I am suggesting is that there is a time when hospice care or palliative care is the better option over continued high-cost treatment which has no chance of success.

And what has this got to do with nationalised healthcare? Do you think NHS doctors are going to order unnessary medication/investigations? Do you think that they’re going to say “Ah we’ll keep on trying.”

We have palliative care pathways and guidelines for doctors to use to recognise when a patient is dying, and the best thing to do is focus on pain and symptom management, etc.

Also, I believe that expensive treatment should be given to cancer patients who are terminal even if it’ll only give them a few months extra. Because that human being deserves as long as they can to live. I find it strange you’re opposing to that.

As a taxpayer, I would much rather my taxes went on a cancer patient being able to live a few extra weeks than someone claiming benefits.

 

[Ender]

Take time to explain the reasons you do not support a national, or universal, healthcare system?

I believe it is quite literally impossible to provide the same level of health care for everyone unless that level is low. That is, it is only by lowering the level of service that it could be granted equally. Rationing of some kind is unavoidable. In countries with universal health care systems it is rationed both by denying some requests outright as well as by delaying (sometimes for quite extensive periods of time) treatment. In the US it is rationed by cost but the key difference is this: in government systems it is the government that decides what treatment an individual will receive. In our system it is the individual who makes the choice.

I don’t accept the proposition that the poor have no access to health care; that is simply incorrect as there are any number of programs (e.g. Medicaid) that provide some level of service. There are problems with the way we deliver care today but there are problems with every system and those problems are intractable when the government runs the system. I believe health care for most will deteriorate if it is run by the government.

Ender

 

[Ender]

You have to remember, that in the UK, the professionals do not have to think about how much things cost. Whether a patient gets a treatment or a test is based on need only. Professionals do not think about money.

If the “professionals” do not have to think about money it is only because non-professional bureaucrats have already made the decision about what treatment to allow. Someone is assuredly thinking about cost … but you’re probably right: it won’t be the doctors and it isn’t the patient - who is prevented by law from procuring his own treatment. So explain why it is preferable to have someone completely disconnected from the situation, who is neither providing nor receiving treatment, make the decision about what treatment is allowed.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I believe it is quite literally impossible to provide the same level of health care for everyone unless that level is low. That is, it is only by lowering the level of service that it could be granted equally. Rationing of some kind is unavoidable. In countries with universal health care systems it is rationed both by denying some requests outright as well as by delaying (sometimes for quite extensive periods of time) treatment. In the US it is rationed by cost but the key difference is this: in government systems it is the government that decides what treatment an individual will receive. In our system it is the individual who makes the choice.

I don’t accept the proposition that the poor have no access to health care; that is simply incorrect as there are any number of programs (e.g. Medicaid) that provide some level of service. There are problems with the way we deliver care today but there are problems with every system and those problems are intractable when the government runs the system. I believe health care for most will deteriorate if it is run by the government.

Ender

Individuals make choices based on their income, or lack of income.

I never said they have no access to all healthcare. However, there are situations where the poor have no access to healthcare. I have given examples, such as one being diagnosed with cancer, or some disease requiring a specialist. Continued care is based on one’s ability to pay. You believe Medicaid is available, but a little income can prevent one from qualifying.

I work in the healthcare industry, on an ambulance. I know from first hand experience with the repeat patients we deal with. So this is private care systems where healthcare providers decide who receives treatment and who doesn’t, based on a person’s ability to pay. Do you think it’s their fault when they don’t have the money to pay?

I fail to see how healthcare will deteriorate if it is run by the government. Does this mean our military is ‘deteriorated’? It is run by the government.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If the “professionals” do not have to think about money it is only because non-professional bureaucrats have already made the decision about what treatment to allow. Someone is assuredly thinking about cost … but you’re probably right: it won’t be the doctors and it isn’t the patient - who is prevented by law from procuring his own treatment. So explain why it is preferable to have someone completely disconnected from the situation, who is neither providing nor receiving treatment, make the decision about what treatment is allowed.

Ender

It seems your argument has gone full circle and is back on money again?

 

[Ender]

It seems your argument has gone full circle and is back on money again?

For the person with only a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I was responding to another person who raised the issue. His comment and my reply have nothing to do with our discussion. Please read more carefully.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

For the person with only a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I was responding to another person who raised the issue. His comment and my reply have nothing to do with our discussion. Please read more carefully.

Ender

Originally Posted by Ender
If the “professionals” do not have to think about money it is only because non-professional bureaucrats have already made the decision about what treatment to allow. Someone is assuredly thinking about cost

I thought the above was a reference made, as a reason, against NHC?