Health Care reform from a Doctors perspective

[Arwen037]

You don’t seem to understand. We are not talking about the way I run my life. We are talking about how the government runs my life. Just so long as we are not making immoral laws we should be looking to legal documents to make laws. The government should not legislate how anyone uses their money. Taxes are acceptable when they provide for everyone. Roads, sidewalks, civic buildings, these are for everyone. Welfare is only for people with out a job, or without a good job. It is wealth redistribution. That’s not what America is about. Some people can’t seem to understand that there are two different issues being discussed.

There are the legal rights.

And the Christian duty.

Legally someone shouldn’t be allowed to take my money just because they don’t think they make enough.

As a Christian I should donate to charities.

Two different things. And some people are trying to say it is the same thing.

 

[Di_bear]

You don’t seem to understand. We are not talking about the way I run my life. We are talking about how the government runs my life. Just so long as we are not making immoral laws we should be looking to legal documents to make laws. The government should not legislate how anyone uses their money. Taxes are acceptable when they provide for everyone. Roads, sidewalks, civic buildings, these are for everyone. Welfare is only for people with out a job, or without a good job. It is wealth redistribution. That’s not what America is about. Some people can’t seem to understand that there are two different issues being discussed.

There are the legal rights.

And the Christian duty.

Legally someone shouldn’t be allowed to take my money just because they don’t think they make enough.

As a Christian I should donate to charities.

Two different things. And some people are trying to say it is the same thing.

Nicely put. God gave man free choice. I don’t think He would argue with laws that did the same.

I am fine with social programs, to an extent. Welfare should be limited, like unemployment, to help people get back on their feet. However, in my area, it is normal for a couple to have 10 to 15 children that they cannot provide for. The result is one working parent and the family goes on welfare for 30 years. I am not willing to fund that.

To bring this back to healthcare, those same families abuse government-funded medical services. They go to to the ER several times per year. Some go every week. The ER is not for the average sore throat and headache, especially when family practice doctors are available six days per week. Going to the ER is costly, yet nothing is being done to encourage people to go through the proper channels for healthcare.

Having worked in healthcare for five years, going premed and having considered becoming a doctor, and speaking with self-employed doctors and people in the insurance industry, I know that many of our healthcare costs are the result of waste created in response to laws. Malpractice is absolutely ridiculous, especially since malpractice suits often have very little to do with negligence and more to do with personality. Sad.

 

[cynic]

. Taxes are acceptable when they provide for everyone. Roads, sidewalks, civic buildings, these are for everyone. .

And what if you don’t use those roads and sidewalks ? What if you live in a low crime area, and are really funding the policing of adjacent towns/cities with higher crime rates?

 

[Arwen037]

If you don’t use the roads and sidewalks that’s your choice. It’s not because someone said “You’re too rich to use these” or “You’re too healthy, so you don’t need to walk” or “You have a car so you don’t need them.” So welfare and free healthcare are available to everyone, regardless of how much they make? If Bill Gates wants to use them he can?

And that’s not the way taxes are distributed. Some precincts have more money because they are in a richer area. The money isn’t distributed by need. So usually it’s not providing for a higher crime area.

 

[royal_archer]

From Article 1, Section 8: The Congress shall have power… To coin money, regulate the value thereof…

No mention of the money needing to be backed by the Federal Reserve.

I presume he is talking about this:

"Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
…"

 

[royal_archer]

The low paid are disadvantaged when it comes to bargaining for wages because of the cost of relocating. Aside from that there is a recession, even with a lack of jobs to go around, people here will still oppose welfare (of any kind) because ultimately it’s about “my money*”…* as per usual. For those with that opinion, the circumstances just don’t matter as welfare involves theft. So why bother arguing further about this? (oh, and I’m employed)

I guess you have not figured out that the taking from the working class and giving to the welfare class is a major factor in causing this recession. And the arguement is not that it is my money per se, it is that it is not the deadbeat’s money.

 

[royal_archer]

Well, one could certainly make a reasonable argument as a Christian that it would not be totally wrong to do this. However, it would seem to encourage other kinds of injustice that are pretty basic, and that would be a problem. I don’t complain about my taxes though, although I would always be happy to see them used in the most effective way possible that is morally sound.

Re some other points that have been made - Honestly, I don’t give a fig about the American constitution, not only doesn’t it have anything to do with me, it is a fallible human document. I have no reason to think that it’s “separation of powers” is the best model theoretically or practically, and plenty of reason to think it might not be. I wouldn’t use the Canadian constitution that way either, or any other secular laws.

If you are trying to figure out the right thing to do or way to live as a Christian or Catholic, such documents have almost no standing. Why would anyone think it could possibly be helpful in understanding what we are required to do as Christians? And if it impedes that, then the problem is with it, not the Christian requirements.

But the constitution as written aligns very well with Christ’ teachings.

 

[cynic]

I guess you have not figured out that the taking from the working class and giving to the welfare class is a major factor in causing this recession. And the arguement is not that it is my money per se, it is that it is not the deadbeat’s money.

Funny I thought it was no deposit mortgages for people with poor credit ratings and no assets.

 

[wade_a_wilson]

Back to the original post…

The way the money flows through “the system” doesn’t make any sense (to me). It is not fair, equitable, rationale, and it is not possible to base it on free-market principles.

The health care distribution machine is so large, that people can find a place to sneak in and leach off of it disproportionately from what they contribute. It is the moral equivalent of wartime profiteering. That is why doctors don’t make what they should.

What follows is a rant on those of you that think someone is taking “your money”…

Why people think that this is somehow welfare I don’t understand. Everyone needs a certain amount of healthcare in their life (preventative), needs the sick people around them to get care (to avoid pandemics, etc), and needs access to advanced care if they actually get sick or injured. No one is spared this need. How does someone agree with taxes supporting fire departments and then say taxes for healthcare don’t make sense. Besides, how productive can a sick person be? Some people are on welfare because they are simply too sick to work. That is a double negative on the economy that could be fixed.

Plus, it can literally kill a small business with 100 employees if 1 person needs a transplant, or has a kid with cancer. Done, company gone. How is employer provided benefits the right way to do things? It’s not. It is just something companies were asked to do in the short term (back in the 50’s by Truman) until society figured out a better way. You can’t be “for Small Business” and against health care reform.

-wade

 

[St_Francis]

…Plus, it can literally kill a small business with 100 employees if 1 person needs a transplant, or has a kid with cancer. Done, company gone. How is employer provided benefits the right way to do things? It’s not. It is just something companies were asked to do in the short term (back in the 50’s by Truman) until society figured out a better way. You can’t be “for Small Business” and against health care reform.

-wade

I don’t understand how a company can be wiped out by the illness of one of those for whom it provides insurance?

I totally agree that insurance through one’s place of employment is not a good idea, **especially **since the employer gets a tax break on it and if one is self-insured, one does **not **get a tax break. This to me is blatant manipulation by the federal government, making the bar to self-employment much higher than it otherwise would be.

 

[Arwen037]

Why people think that this is somehow welfare I don’t understand. Everyone needs a certain amount of healthcare in their life (preventative), needs the sick people around them to get care (to avoid pandemics, etc), and needs access to advanced care if they actually get sick or injured. No one is spared this need. How does someone agree with taxes supporting fire departments and then say taxes for healthcare don’t make sense. Besides, how productive can a sick person be? Some people are on welfare because they are simply too sick to work. That is a double negative on the economy that could be fixed.

Plus, it can literally kill a small business with 100 employees if 1 person needs a transplant, or has a kid with cancer. Done, company gone. How is employer provided benefits the right way to do things? It’s not. It is just something companies were asked to do in the short term (back in the 50’s by Truman) until society figured out a better way. You can’t be “for Small Business” and against health care reform.

It’s welfare because it is based on lack of income. Fire departments don’t help only poor people or rich people. It doesn’t matter who’s house is on fire.

And I’m not sure how someone needing a transplant would destroy a company, other than a VERY small insurance company. The company will have health insurance for it’s employees, in which case the company doesn’t pay, the person will have personal health insurance, in which case the company won’t pay, the person will have to pay out of pocket, or they won’t get it. In none of those cases does the company go under.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Back to the original post…

The way the money flows through “the system” doesn’t make any sense (to me). It is not fair, equitable, rationale, and it is not possible to base it on free-market principles.

The health care distribution machine is so large, that people can find a place to sneak in and leach off of it disproportionately from what they contribute. It is the moral equivalent of wartime profiteering. That is why doctors don’t make what they should.

What follows is a rant on those of you that think someone is taking “your money”…

Why people think that this is somehow welfare I don’t understand. Everyone needs a certain amount of healthcare in their life (preventative), needs the sick people around them to get care (to avoid pandemics, etc), and needs access to advanced care if they actually get sick or injured. No one is spared this need. How does someone agree with taxes supporting fire departments and then say taxes for healthcare don’t make sense. Besides, how productive can a sick person be? Some people are on welfare because they are simply too sick to work. That is a double negative on the economy that could be fixed.

Plus, it can literally kill a small business with 100 employees if 1 person needs a transplant, or has a kid with cancer. Done, company gone. How is employer provided benefits the right way to do things? It’s not. It is just something companies were asked to do in the short term (back in the 50’s by Truman) until society figured out a better way. You can’t be “for Small Business” and against health care reform.

-wade

Actually company health benefits were some that some companies started offering in the 1930’s with the begining of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. They started offering benefits like that because in the old days not only did businesses competed for customers, but also good employees to take care of those customers. These days most businesses don’t think they need good employees to take care of their customers.

 

[cynic]

If you don’t use the roads and sidewalks that’s your choice. It’s not because someone said “You’re too rich to use these” or “You’re too healthy, so you don’t need to walk” or “You have a car so you don’t need them.” So welfare and free healthcare are available to everyone, regardless of how much they make? If Bill Gates wants to use them he can?

And that’s not the way taxes are distributed. Some precincts have more money because they are in a richer area. The money isn’t distributed by need. So usually it’s not providing for a higher crime area.

then why not have a user pays system for roads, fire departments and policing? It will avoid that nasty transfer of wealth from those who less likely to use these services.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Hi everyone. Sorry, I’m just going to throw this in. It’s not meant as an attack on anyone or anyone’s beliefs, opinions, etc. I’m not sure if this has been discussed yet in this thread.

What about people who cannot purchase health insurance?? Note I am not talking about an inability to pay whatever health insurance would cost. What I mean is that no insurance company will sell them a policy. If a health insurance company finds out that a person who is applying for coverage has, say diabetes, it doesn’t make any difference whether that person can pay or not. Insurance companies absolutely will not sell policies to people who have diabetes.

Also, what about medical conditions which are not covered by health insurance? A good example of this is TMJD (temporomandibular joint disorder). Medical insurance does not pay for this disease because it is a “dental” problem. Dental insurance does not pay for this disease because it is a “medical” condition.

Currently the only option available to these people is Medicare.

I’m not saying if I think a national health insurance plan is a good idea, mainly because I don’t know. I’m just pointing something out. That’s all.

 

[Arwen037]

Hi everyone. Sorry, I’m just going to throw this in. It’s not meant as an attack on anyone or anyone’s beliefs, opinions, etc. I’m not sure if this has been discussed yet in this thread.

What about people who cannot purchase health insurance?? Note I am not talking about an inability to pay whatever health insurance would cost. What I mean is that no insurance company will sell them a policy. If a health insurance company finds out that a person who is applying for coverage has, say diabetes, it doesn’t make any difference whether that person can pay or not. Insurance companies absolutely will not sell policies to people who have diabetes.

Also, what about medical conditions which are not covered by health insurance? A good example of this is TMJD (temporomandibular joint disorder). Medical insurance does not pay for this disease because it is a “dental” problem. Dental insurance does not pay for this disease because it is a “medical” condition.

Currently the only option available to these people is Medicare.

I’m not saying if I think a national health insurance plan is a good idea, mainly because I don’t know. I’m just pointing something out. That’s all.

These are issues to be addressed through reform, not through government take-over. And just so long as you had insurance when you got diabetes, then you should be fine. I’m pretty sure they can’t drop you. If they do, then you have recourses. But you can’t expect to wait until you get sick and then buy health insurance. You don’t have a car accident, buy auto insurance, and expect your new policy to cover that accident.

 

[Di_bear]

If you have a pre-existing condition, then you cannot let your insurance lapse. If it does, then you probably won’t be able to get insurance. If you don’t allow it to lapse, then you won’t be denied insurance.

Aside from the system abuse that I mentioned in my earlier thread, I am not willing to pay for everyone else’s healthcare because of the personal abuse that is so rampant in our society. There many, MANY people who have high blood pressure, diabetes, and other conditions that are brought about by lifestyle, and many of these cases could be healed if people would make an effort to change their diets and get more exercise. Smoking is another thing. So many of my “regular” patients did not make an effort to lead a healthy lifestyle, and some of them were adamant that they weren’t going to make changes.

 

[wabrams]

What about people who cannot purchase health insurance?? Note I am not talking about an inability to pay whatever health insurance would cost. What I mean is that no insurance company will sell them a policy. If a health insurance company finds out that a person who is applying for coverage has, say diabetes, it doesn’t make any difference whether that person can pay or not. Insurance companies absolutely will not sell policies to people who have diabetes.

Also, what about medical conditions which are not covered by health insurance? A good example of this is TMJD (temporomandibular joint disorder). Medical insurance does not pay for this disease because it is a “dental” problem. Dental insurance does not pay for this disease because it is a “medical” condition.

Currently the only option available to these people is Medicare.

And then let them use Medicare; just extend the benefits of Medicare to also include those who cannot get insurance coverage for health reasons.

What Congress is trying to do is cut off the head to cure the headache.

 

[pathia]

What are people supposed to do when they are BORN with a condition. THere is no way to be covered BEFORE one is born, nevermind the fact insurance is completely out of your control before you’re of legal age.

I was declined for pre-existing conditions as soon as I was a legal adult at 18, I can’t be the only person this has happened to. What are these people supposed to do? LIFE is a pre-existing condition

And then let them use Medicare; just extend the benefits of Medicare to also include those who cannot get insurance coverage for health reasons.

What Congress is trying to do is cut off the head to cure the headache.

And who would propose such a plan? Half the GOP wants to dismantle medicare entirely, not to mention medicaid. MEdicare is aimed at older folks and end of life. People in the prime of their life are not what’s in mind for the kind of system medicare is.

 

[St_Francis]

If you have a pre-existing condition, then you cannot let your insurance lapse. If it does, then you probably won’t be able to get insurance. If you don’t allow it to lapse, then you won’t be denied insurance.

Aside from the system abuse that I mentioned in my earlier thread, I am not willing to pay for everyone else’s healthcare because of the personal abuse that is so rampant in our society. There many, MANY people who have high blood pressure, diabetes, and other conditions that are brought about by lifestyle, and many of these cases could be healed if people would make an effort to change their diets and get more exercise. Smoking is another thing. So many of my “regular” patients did not make an effort to lead a healthy lifestyle, and some of them were adamant that they weren’t going to make changes.

And then you have people who have these types of problems who *have *made the changes, who *have *lived healthy lifestyles. My father exercised regularly for his work, didn’t smoke, went on a special heart-healthy diet when he was in his 40s, all of that, and he still has to take meds for high blood pressure, had to have a triple bypass in his 50s, etc. His mother died of a heart attack when she was 42.

And I know a lot of poor people who eat bad diets because they don’t really know what else to do and that is what they can afford. Macaroni and cheese and the like. I knew a lady in her 50s who’d grown up in a farm community where everyone fried everything, and all she knew was how to fry, and that she wasn’t supposed to eat fried foods.

Yeah, great, all of you have been given a great deal, you’ve been given intelligence, education, chances, the good luck of not having everything fall apart around you through no fault of your own.

 

[aspawloski4th]

And then you have people who have these types of problems who *have *made the changes, who *have *lived healthy lifestyles. My father exercised regularly for his work, didn’t smoke, went on a special heart-healthy diet when he was in his 40s, all of that, and he still has to take meds for high blood pressure, had to have a triple bypass in his 50s, etc. His mother died of a heart attack when she was 42.

And I know a lot of poor people who eat bad diets because they don’t really know what else to do and that is what they can afford. Macaroni and cheese and the like. I knew a lady in her 50s who’d grown up in a farm community where everyone fried everything, and all she knew was how to fry, and that she wasn’t supposed to eat fried foods.

Yeah, great, all of you have been given a great deal, you’ve been given intelligence, education, chances, the good luck of not having everything fall apart around you through no fault of your own.

What people forget is family traits and genetics. On my dad’s side of the family there is no such thing as a heart attack. His mother has a total cholesterol that is close to being the same as her age, which is 86. And they are quenisential carnivores. My wife’s family is full of health nuts and they die at 70 of heart attacks. With my family background of good cardio vasculer health, and the not liking the taste of veggies, no one is going to take away my meat.