Health care: is it a human right?

[marcylee]

I heard part of the answer to my OP on The World Over with Raymond Arroyo on EWTN (this week’s broadcast). I hope to see it again on TV (only heard it on radio this evening).

Hope you all get to see/hear it as well. It was enlightening.

I found a book, An Introduction ot Catholic Social Teaching by Rodger Charles SJ. Only 103 pages, but very helpful, concise.

I think all Catholics need to be thinking about this and maybe there will be a few discussion groups starting up in various parishes.

A lot of people are confused about what Justice means, and Subsidiarity. The Catholic social teaching can sound quite socialistic if not understood in the correct way. Some in my state are getting into a Liberation Theology way of looking at it, and 3 popes have written that this is minimally compatible with Catholic teaching.

God bless,
Mimi

Hi Mimi!

I really like much of what I hear on EWTN, and I do like Ray Arroyo. I will look for that book you recommended, Intro to Catholic Social Teaching. What is Subsidiarity, and what are your feelings on Liberation Theology. I’m quite conservative and am not a fan of what I’ve heard about it. President Obama has gone to a Black Liberation Theology Church led by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who has been quite outspoken and seems to be a racist. But I would like to hear from somebody who may be impartial and who just wants to help people because that is what is right and not trying to pass an agenda.

Thanks, and God Bless!

Marcylee

P.S. I LOVE Archbishop Sheen!

 

[marcylee]

So, Mimi, do you think Medicare and Medicaid are failures?
These are programs provided by the government that provide healthcare to elderly people and the disabled.
It seems to work fairly well as far as it goes.
What’s wrong with extending it to the whole country?

In my opinion, the problem is the insurance companies, who pay big bucks to their officers while specializing in refusing care to the insured.
Some other countries provide basic health care to all citizens, and do it without going broke, by paying for it out of taxes. The taxes are a little higher, but no one goes bankrupt just because they get sick, which often happens in the US.

The next big thing is preventive care. We all need to quit eating starch and sugar and stick to vegetables and protein, and get some exercise. That would eliminate 50% of our diseases.

Hi Viki!

I see what you mean about other countries being able to provide basic healthcare to their consituents without going bankrupt. The problem in the US is that we have so overextended ourselves through entitlement programs, that there is no money leftover for the people who truly need it. And, from my experience with my mother, there are abuses in the Medicare system. However, she paid for Medicare Part B and supplemental insurance, so that might account for some of the abuses.

I know there are many people who truly need help. And I apologize to people on this site for sounding heartless, but how do we, all of us, provide universal health care when there are so many abuses? I know there are many people who have mental problems that can’t work. But there are also many people who manipulate the system to their own advantage. Maybe there needs to be a check and balance system so that these situations can be better monitored.

 

[marcylee]

What is the “mental illness card?”

Sorry, JuneBug, I was a little harsh with that one. When I was in the mental hospital, there were people there who actually needed help temporarily, like myself. There were people who actually needed to be there permanently. But there we also people there who were pretending to be mentally ill but who just wanted to escape the reponsibilities of life. I know of these people because they told me that is what they were doing, and told me how I could do it, but I could not live with myself if I did it.

 

[mpi]

Okay. Without insurance I can only afford $30 a month for my medication. Is the pharmaceutical company that makes it ready to drop the price from 700 a month. If not I’ll stick with the insuranc eoption and also provide it to the disabled through medicare and medicaid.

Were it not for capitalist health care in the US the drug you require would likely haver never been invented/discovered.

 

[goofyjim]

Were it not for capitalist health care in the US the drug you require would likely haver never been invented/discovered.

Nice effort but it should still come into my price range if we’re going to do without insurance. If I had to pay out of pocket for it now it would eat up half my monthly income. The person with insurance just pays 6 bucks. Certainly all who are in need of it should get it for the same copayment but toooften we deny it to the neediest and then say that they are “playing the mental illness card”. Without this medication I couldn’t work. Without insurance I couldn’t pay for the medication. It’s a smalll price to pay from society to get me back as a taxpayer again and contributing to the very society that helps out in this situation.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Nice effort but it should still come into my price range if we’re going to do without insurance. If I had to pay out of pocket for it now it would eat up half my monthly income. The person with insurance just pays 6 bucks. Certainly all who are in need of it should get it for the same copayment but toooften we deny it to the neediest and then say that they are “playing the mental illness card”. Without this medication I couldn’t work. Without insurance I couldn’t pay for the medication. It’s a smalll price to pay from society to get me back as a taxpayer again and contributing to the very society that helps out in this situation.

Jim, the insurance companies don’t bring drugs “into your price range.” In reality, the insurance system, as it stands now, is largely to blame for the disproportionate inflation of medical costs in the US. Their ability to parlay individual insurance premiums into gigantic funding pools enables drug companies to charge and collect enormous fees for their products. It is all part of a huge cycle…sure, these enormous fees pay for important research and development of new drugs…but they also enable these companies to compound inefficient practices which, in turn, unnecessarily inflate the cost of drugs, putting pressure on insurance companies to collect higher premiums, reduce services, and increase copays.

The cycle would be no different if the government was involved- all that would change is that we would substitute the word “TAXES” for “PREMIUMS.”

Sure, government involvement might you some time, but ultimately the government would have to figure out more aggressive ways to reduce their costs.

The problem with this is that the same government that decides the legal standards for patient care would be responsible for finding more innovative ways for reducing the costs of patient care- like refusing care (or offering euthanasia) to citizens who have outlived their usefulness to the common good, like senior citizens, the mentally challenged, the physically handicapped-- and if money gets really tight, then they can extend that list to other groups as they see fit, like premature babies, or criminals, or political dissidents.

 

[marcylee]

I recently read an article in which a former US attorney general, who is now 92 years old, stated that he became very ill in 1986. This illness left him a quadraplegic. Surgery restored his limbs, but if he had lived in England at that time, he would have been 9 years too old to have that surgery that saved his life and gave him another 21 years. He fears that the US is about to embrace this same English socialized medicine system with the government deciding who lives and dies. It is sickening that the government is going to second guess doctors.

 

[JuneBug72]

I recently read an article in which a former US attorney general, who is now 92 years old, stated that he became very ill in 1986. This illness left him a quadraplegic. Surgery restored his limbs, but if he had lived in England at that time, he would have been 9 years too old to have that surgery that saved his life and gave him another 21 years. He fears that the US is about to embrace this same English socialized medicine system with the government deciding who lives and dies. It is sickening that the government is going to second guess doctors.

I assume he had health insurance at the time? If you have health insurance in the USA (which thankfully I have) you have access to the most advanced medical care in the world (treatment). If you don’t have health insurance you don’t have the same options.

We have a good system for the insured.

There was a survey conducted on a global scale several years ago in regard to satisfaction with health care. I was surprised that the USA came in at like 40th world wide.

Did anyone else see this?

 

[marcylee]

I assume he had health insurance at the time? If you have health insurance in the USA (which thankfully I have) you have access to the most advanced medical care in the world (treatment). If you don’t have health insurance you don’t have the same options.

We have a good system for the insured.

There was a survey conducted on a global scale several years ago in regard to satisfaction with health care. I was surprised that the USA came in at like 40th world wide.

Did anyone else see this?

Hey JuneBug!

It was in my local paper. It was there for people to read, if they cared to. I did not check the info out for myself, but is supposedly a quote by C. Everett Koop.

 

[goofyjim]

Jim, the insurance companies don’t bring drugs “into your price range.” In reality, the insurance system, as it stands now, is largely to blame for the disproportionate inflation of medical costs in the US. Their ability to parlay individual insurance premiums into gigantic funding pools enables drug companies to charge and collect enormous fees for their products. It is all part of a huge cycle…sure, these enormous fees pay for important research and development of new drugs…but they also enable these companies to compound inefficient practices which, in turn, unnecessarily inflate the cost of drugs, putting pressure on insurance companies to collect higher premiums, reduce services, and increase copays.

The cycle would be no different if the government was involved- all that would change is that we would substitute the word “TAXES” for “PREMIUMS.”

Sure, government involvement might you some time, but ultimately the government would have to figure out more aggressive ways to reduce their costs.

The problem with this is that the same government that decides the legal standards for patient care would be responsible for finding more innovative ways for reducing the costs of patient care- like refusing care (or offering euthanasia) to citizens who have outlived their usefulness to the common good, like senior citizens, the mentally challenged, the physically handicapped-- and if money gets really tight, then they can extend that list to other groups as they see fit, like premature babies, or criminals, or political dissidents.

All I’m saying for the umpteenth time is that you have insurance companies that make it possible for many to afford medication by only making copayments and having the insurance pay the actual cost. They have more collective bargaining power to keep the price in their range and our copayments low. They are able to invest the premiums everyone pays to them and make profits elsewhere. Nothing wrong with that whole scenario at all. But while you have it, you must provide some option for those who can’t, not won’t, get it in the open market. It is simply inhuman to permit some to go without treatment. If the government does not want to pick up the tab for the unfortunate individuals then it must pass legislation to require regular insurers to do so, in which case everyone’s overall premiums will go up. But to leave people without necessary care is inhuman.

 

[Cat]

If those surgeries and new drugs are lifesaving society has an obligation to get them to everyone whether they have insurance or not.

Too broad.

I have problems with my posterior tibialis tendons in my foot–they keep breaking. I am in the risk group–a woman over 40, flat-footed, fairly-active, and obese. This is the most common injury of women who have my profile–and there are a LOT of women who have my profile!

Diagnosing this condition requires Xrays and MRI. It is very painful so I take Celebrex. I belong to a gym to try to keep my weight down (it was after a 30 pound weight loss that the tendon broke, possibly weight-bearing exercise-induced.) And in a few weeks I’ll have my second surgery.

All of the above costs money.

You might say, “Well, this condition isn’t life-threatening.”

Oh, yes, it is. One of the main causes of heart disease is chronic inflammation.

Also the condition makes me more immobile, which brings a whole host of life-threatening problems.

The condition makes it difficult for me to sleep through the night. Lack of sleep has been proven to contribute to a host of health problems.

And it’s depressing. I have really struggled with the pain and the loss of my mobility this past year. I can’t even stand long enough to tour a museum, and I can’t climb steps, so one of my favorite activities, touring old homes, is no longer an option (unless someone put in an elevator!). This all makes me sad. Depression has a serious effect on the physical condition of the body and can be life-threatening.

So the question is–should all my various problems be paid for by the government?

A good physician can make the case that pretty much everything is life-threatening, including posterior tibialis problems. Should all this be paid for?

How about an injury to the ACL by a professional athlete? Without that ACL, he/she cannot play his/her sport, which means they can’t make a living, which means that their life is threatened. Should they receive free health care? Or is it only the “poor” who receive it for free, while the “rich” pay through the nose?

You see, it’s not so easy in real-life to determine what “life-threatening” conditions are.

 

[goofyjim]

Too broad.

I have problems with my posterior tibialis tendons in my foot–they keep breaking. I am in the risk group–a woman over 40, flat-footed, fairly-active, and obese. This is the most common injury of women who have my profile–and there are a LOT of women who have my profile!

Diagnosing this condition requires Xrays and MRI. It is very painful so I take Celebrex. I belong to a gym to try to keep my weight down (it was after a 30 pound weight loss that the tendon broke, possibly weight-bearing exercise-induced.) And in a few weeks I’ll have my second surgery.

All of the above costs money.

You might say, “Well, this condition isn’t life-threatening.”

Oh, yes, it is. One of the main causes of heart disease is chronic inflammation.

Also the condition makes me more immobile, which brings a whole host of life-threatening problems.

The condition makes it difficult for me to sleep through the night. Lack of sleep has been proven to contribute to a host of health problems.

And it’s depressing. I have really struggled with the pain and the loss of my mobility this past year. I can’t even stand long enough to tour a museum, and I can’t climb steps, so one of my favorite activities, touring old homes, is no longer an option (unless someone put in an elevator!). This all makes me sad. Depression has a serious effect on the physical condition of the body and can be life-threatening.

So the question is–should all my various problems be paid for by the government?

A good physician can make the case that pretty much everything is life-threatening, including posterior tibialis problems. Should all this be paid for?

How about an injury to the ACL by a professional athlete? Without that ACL, he/she cannot play his/her sport, which means they can’t make a living, which means that their life is threatened. Should they receive free health care? Or is it only the “poor” who receive it for free, while the “rich” pay through the nose?

You see, it’s not so easy in real-life to determine what “life-threatening” conditions are.

The ones that should receive free healthcare are those who are unable, not unwilling, to provide it for themselves through regular insurance. It shouldn’t even have to be lifethreatening. Any health factor if ignored over time contributes to an early death. Why should a longer life only go to those who just happen to be able to work? If they refuse to work then they should go without. But if they are unable then they should have the same treatment the rest of us do.

 

[Oscarthecat]

The ones that should receive free healthcare are those who are unable, not unwilling, to provide it for themselves through regular insurance.

Ok, I can agree with what you’re saying here, in principle, but the devil is in the details. Just take the language you use, for example.

First- Free healthcare?? Nothing is free- especially healthcare. It is expensive. Something that is “free” is regarded as having little or no intrinsic value in the marketplace. People think that because they are receiving it for “free” that no one had to pay for it. Furthermore, they come to believe that they are entitled to that thing. A good example of this is how restaurants took a lot of flack when they stopped giving people coffee “for free.” People were mad- they felt entitled to their “free coffee”…it didn’t really occur to them that the restaurant had been footing a sizeable expense for all those years they were giving it away for “free.”

Second- what does “unable” mean? Countless psych studies have shown that people are able to do all kinds of things they never thought they could, once given the proper incentive. For crying out loud- anyone who has watched “Fear Factor” can attest to this. I know this is a tired argument (I know I’m tired of it) but if we’re going to pay 1000/month for someone’s insurance premiums, should we ask them to contribute what they can by turning off their cable service? or by asking them to choose either a land line OR a cell phone, but not both? or by asking them to return the nice SUV they’re leasing and exchange it for a Kia? Or do we have the right to put conditions on something that we’re giving to someone for “free.”

Third- what is “regular insurance?” When I was in college, I didn’t have “regular insurance” because I couldn’t afford it. Instead, I had catastrophic coverage- that is, I was covered for major medical issues, like accidental injuries and things requiring hospitalization, but they didn’t cover regular checkups or prescriptions not related to major medical issues. That worked for me just fine- it was what I needed, and what I could afford.

Fourth- what about those people who are “unwilling” to afford insurance? What if they were dying in the street and they needed help? Are you saying that we should let them die because they didn’t want insurance? What if they changed their minds after they were hit by a car, or found out they had cancer, and became medically disabled?

What I’m getting at is that I think the most divisive thing about this issue is how people who agree on a basic principle can become divided as they work out the details.

We both agree that people we have a moral responsibility to help those who can’t help themselves, but it is very difficult figuring out how to make that happen.

 

[goofyjim]

Ok, I can agree with what you’re saying here, in principle, but the devil is in the details. Just take the language you use, for example.

First- Free healthcare?? Nothing is free- especially healthcare. It is expensive. Something that is “free” is regarded as having little or no intrinsic value in the marketplace. People think that because they are receiving it for “free” that no one had to pay for it. Furthermore, they come to believe that they are entitled to that thing. A good example of this is how restaurants took a lot of flack when they stopped giving people coffee “for free.” People were mad- they felt entitled to their “free coffee”…it didn’t really occur to them that the restaurant had been footing a sizeable expense for all those years they were giving it away for “free.”

Second- what does “unable” mean? Countless psych studies have shown that people are able to do all kinds of things they never thought they could, once given the proper incentive. For crying out loud- anyone who has watched “Fear Factor” can attest to this. I know this is a tired argument (I know I’m tired of it) but if we’re going to pay 1000/month for someone’s insurance premiums, should we ask them to contribute what they can by turning off their cable service? or by asking them to choose either a land line OR a cell phone, but not both? or by asking them to return the nice SUV they’re leasing and exchange it for a Kia? Or do we have the right to put conditions on something that we’re giving to someone for “free.”

Third- what is “regular insurance?” When I was in college, I didn’t have “regular insurance” because I couldn’t afford it. Instead, I had catastrophic coverage- that is, I was covered for major medical issues, like accidental injuries and things requiring hospitalization, but they didn’t cover regular checkups or prescriptions not related to major medical issues. That worked for me just fine- it was what I needed, and what I could afford.

Fourth- what about those people who are “unwilling” to afford insurance? What if they were dying in the street and they needed help? Are you saying that we should let them die because they didn’t want insurance? What if they changed their minds after they were hit by a car, or found out they had cancer, and became medically disabled?

What I’m getting at is that I think the most divisive thing about this issue is how people who agree on a basic principle can become divided as they work out the details.

We both agree that people we have a moral responsibility to help those who can’t help themselves, but it is very difficult figuring out how to make that happen.

I think we should all shut off our cable tv and help each other financially. And if they truly can’t work what do they have to contribute? I don’t see any mentally ill people with SUVs so I fail to see that line of reasoning. And they need cable to get the access to news information that we have. Unless of course we choose to keep them uninformed, but then we would say they shouldn’t vote if they’re uninformed. And what if someone else is actually helping them pay that cable bill? Do we take that away in that case? Let them keep cable. They’re going to need it with this required transition in June.

Maybe the government is not the answer but we should mandate that insurance companies cannot turn people away. Then everybody would have equal access to the bargaining power of insurance companies to keep individual costs low. Otherwise we should outlaw insurance for everyone and let the free market riegn and have everyone pay out of pocket. See how many would actually go for that farce.

 

[mpi]

Nice effort but it should still come into my price range if we’re going to do without insurance. If I had to pay out of pocket for it now it would eat up half my monthly income. The person with insurance just pays 6 bucks. Certainly all who are in need of it should get it for the same copayment but toooften we deny it to the neediest and then say that they are “playing the mental illness card”. Without this medication I couldn’t work. Without insurance I couldn’t pay for the medication. It’s a smalll price to pay from society to get me back as a taxpayer again and contributing to the very society that helps out in this situation.

Marxism - from each according to his means…to each according to his needs.

 

[mpi]

Nice effort but it should still come into my price range if we’re going to do without insurance. If I had to pay out of pocket for it now it would eat up half my monthly income. The person with insurance just pays 6 bucks. Certainly all who are in need of it should get it for the same copayment but toooften we deny it to the neediest and then say that they are “playing the mental illness card”. Without this medication I couldn’t work. Without insurance I couldn’t pay for the medication. It’s a smalll price to pay from society to get me back as a taxpayer again and contributing to the very society that helps out in this situation.

I don’t want a dime of my money being taken from me by the government and given to people with non-life threatening ailments.

 

[goofyjim]

I don’t want a dime of my money being taken from me by the government and given to people with non-life threatening ailments.

There’s lots of stuff I don’t want a dime of my money going towards but do I have a say? Like the war in Iraq, yet someone cleverly decided they could spend my money on that one.

 

[goofyjim]

Marxism - from each according to his means…to each according to his needs.

It’s not Marxism. Are you really suggesting I should have gone without the medication, then be forced to work when I couldn’t without such. Heartless. Now if the insurers would be required to cover me regardless I could see getting the government out of the business. Honestly everyone is so worried about giving up something. Then step in and pay for someone’s medication. But don’t sit back in your comfort zone and tell them to just get over it without the necessities such as medication to do it.

 

[jman507]

I don’t want a dime of my money being taken from me by the government and given to people with non-life threatening ailments.

You’ll just have the hospital cost shift that around.

 

[marcylee]

I think we should all shut off our cable tv and help each other financially. And if they truly can’t work what do they have to contribute? I don’t see any mentally ill people with SUVs so I fail to see that line of reasoning. And they need cable to get the access to news information that we have. Unless of course we choose to keep them uninformed, but then we would say they shouldn’t vote if they’re uninformed. And what if someone else is actually helping them pay that cable bill? Do we take that away in that case? Let them keep cable. They’re going to need it with this required transition in June.

Maybe the government is not the answer but we should mandate that insurance companies cannot turn people away. Then everybody would have equal access to the bargaining power of insurance companies to keep individual costs low. Otherwise we should outlaw insurance for everyone and let the free market riegn and have everyone pay out of pocket. See how many would actually go for that farce.

I actually agree with you Jim, I think. If everybody had to pay out of pocket, then it would put the insurance companies, and the pharmaceutical companies out of business, because no one would be able to pay their inordinate prices. We would all be starting from ground zero. Then there enters the problem of research for drugs that would help people. It seems to be a catch 22.

On the other hand, if government controls healthcare, they control all aspects of healthcare. What if the government decides that you (or I or someone we love) are too wacked out to save, and then they just cut off your help because the funds may benefit someone more able or fit and better able to work or make money and pay taxes? What happens then? I realize I am speaking in hypotheticals, but aren’t we all? I would hope that we all want what is best for each other on a personal level. I truly hope you can afford your medication, but can you see how this can get out of hand?

God Bless you truly, Jim. Marcylee