How SHOULD Health Care Work?

[Man]

…
When in the history of the world has anyone been able to support a family with a part time, low skilled job? Hint: if your teenagers can do the job while they are still in high school, it is not a high skill job.
…

This seems as if it may have been directed at me. We regard those incapable of meeting your “obligation” of skilled full time employment as poor, correct?

Your point is that we have need to suffering in order to become properly productive members of society.

This discussion, here, though, goes beyond this minor thing (Medicare versus wages for the disabled), and into the realm of fair promotion and wage parity. There is a lack of well paying jobs in this country, especially for those… who have difficulty fitting into the collegian system…

The application, then, of “#1” is more far reaching and complex, and would barely be considered a mere health care bill. This is why we have what we have. “#1” must become organic to the society and cannot, realistically, be regulated without washing out the human spirit…

 

[vern_humphrey]

This is additional taxes to pay for school and programs, plus you insinuate that all person should be required to continue education. He prepares food for two hundred people a day in a hot annoying job, but has no right to work there. In fact, he doesn’t even have a right to health care. OR, maybe you NEED to pay more for you food. We could regulate that…

Indeed we could – thus driving up the cost of food at McDonald’s, thus driving away customers, thus driving the company out of business, thus putting this guy out of work.

Good solution.:whacky:

 

[vern_humphrey]

This seems as if it may have been directed at me. We regard those incapable of meeting your “obligation” of skilled full time employment as poor, correct?

Your point is that we have need to suffering in order to become properly productive members of society.

…

No, the point is if some of us have an obligation to support the rest of us, don’t the rest of us have an obligation to support ourselves?

Where is there a right for some of us to fail to maximize our potential, coupled with an obligation for others to compensate for that failure?

 

[Man]

No, the point is if some of us have an obligation to support the rest of us, don’t the rest of us have an obligation to support ourselves?

Where is there a right for some of us to fail to maximize our potential, coupled with an obligation for others to compensate for that failure?

There is no justice without God…

 

[Trader]

Man, I agree with you that the question of social justice is complex. I cannot address the whole question for several reasons.

I) I don’t have all the answers. God does. Ask Him. I mean that most sincerely.

1. I do not understand everything you said.

I will go a little farther about what I do understand.

College is absolutely not for everyone. There are lot of auto mechanics, plumbers, electricians, and athletes who earn more than I ever did while I was working.

There are a lot of high paying jobs for those who have trained for them. Not only that, but it is the well educated that are creating jobs in our economy. We need more people on the job creation front and fewer on the “give me a job” line. I know that sounds harsh, but it is true. If parents hide that reality from their children, those children are being done a disservice.

 

[vern_humphrey]

There is no justice without God…

We know that. How does it impact on this discussion of health care?

 

[Man]

Man, I agree with you that the question of social justice is complex. I cannot address the whole question for several reasons.

I) I don’t have all the answers. God does. Ask Him. I mean that most sincerely.

1. I do not understand everything you said.

I will go a little farther about what I do understand.

College is absolutely not for everyone. There are lot of auto mechanics, plumbers, electricians, and athletes who earn more than I ever did while I was working.

There are a lot of high paying jobs for those who have trained for them. Not only that, but it is the well educated that are creating jobs in our economy. We need more people on the job creation front and fewer on the “give me a job” line. I know that sounds harsh, but it is true. If parents hide that reality from their children, those children are being done a disservice.

This is not something one should hide or shelter their children from. However, because this discussion revolves around complex social matters, it may be necessary to look at a larger scale to understand the problems in the various micro cultures you/we may not always understand.

This problem persists throughout the world. Because of the the actions of various human organizations there is an unfair and unjust use of resources by todays various civilizations. This being the case, it is impossible for some individuals to receive what they need to live even an austere subsistence lifestyle.

Therefore, my skepticism is due to an understanding that the things required to live this austere subsistence lifestyle are not given to everyone. I would not resort to socialism because it washes out the human spirit, nonetheless, I object to the argument that the cultures around the various peoples of the US are always just enough to prepare people to enter into our prosperity.

Thus, all of these things cannot be regulated, but must become one with the culture. If one wishes to live an austere subsistence lifestyle, including physical labor, do they have the right to do so without interference from the world? And in response, the world accept this as a service rather than a social problem?

 

[jman507]

No, the point is if some of us have an obligation to support the rest of us, don’t the rest of us have an obligation to support ourselves?

Where is there a right for some of us to fail to maximize our potential, coupled with an obligation for others to compensate for that failure?

One other point to add, eventually if everyone is looking for someone else to provide the support, the whole system can collapse upon itself, and no one will get any support.

 

[Man]

One other point to add, eventually if everyone is looking for someone else to provide the support, the whole system can collapse upon itself, and no one will get any support.

I believe that that is contrary to human nature, as “undeserved” charity is a form of indignation.

 

[vern_humphrey]

One other point to add, eventually if everyone is looking for someone else to provide the support, the whole system can collapse upon itself, and no one will get any support.

Get out your secret decoder ring and I’ll explain the plan to you.

First of all, we get 49% of the people to support the other 51%.

Second, we present this to the 51% not as charity from those who work from a living, but as a gift from a benevolent government, which forces those greedy “rich people” to disgorge their ill-gotten gains.

Third, each election, we remind the 51% that if the other side wins, they’ll allow the greedy “rich people” to keep their ill-gotten gains, and the 51% will have to go to work and earn their living.

Finally, if anyone tries to expose this scheme, we trot out the mythical hard-working poor man on minimum wage with six children and an invalid grandmother, and accuse them of attacking this truly deserving man.

 

[Man]

…
Finally, if anyone tries to expose this scheme, we trot out the mythical hard-working poor man on minimum wage with six children and an invalid grandmother, and accuse them of attacking this truly deserving man.

This is relativism.

Do people have a right to health care or not?

The answer is yes or no. And, if it is “no” then you have to accept the results as well.

 

[vern_humphrey]

This is relativism.

No, it’s not – and you can’t make a case that it is.

Do people have a right to health care or not?

People have a right to what they earn. Those who truly cannot earn must be cared for by the rest of us. But those who fail to contribute when they are capable of working consume charity that really should go to the truly deserving.

Now, having answered your question, let me ask you one: Do people have a right to live off the labor of others, while neglecting to maximize their own gifts and contribute their share to the general welfare?

The answer is yes or no. And, if it is “no” then you have to accept the results as well.

The answer is yes or no. And, if it is “no” then you have to accept the results as well.

 

[Trader]

Man, I think if you read all the posts in this thread, the discussion is almost entirely about what should be done in the USA. The workings of the health care system in other countries are used as examples of what works and what doesn’t work, and there is a lot of disagreement on the value of those models. I have zero expertise on the nuts and bolts of those systems. If you have read my earlier posts, I don’t even have much personal experience with the US health care system. I have no insurance and pay my own way on the rare occasions when I need any kind of health care. I do, however, pay a significant portion of my taxes for other people’s health care. I will pay a larger amount in the future because Medicare has not put aside anywhere near the amount needed to meet future care promised to seniors under current law.

If one wishes to live an austere subsistence lifestyle, including physical labor, do they have the right to do so without interference from the world?

Yes, they do. They also have to take resposibility for their decision. If you are an untalented athlete (a category I would fit into), does society have the duty to support that choice? When I was young I really wanted to play shortstop for the Chicago Cubs. I was a versatile athlete. I could hit like a pitcher, run like a catcher, throw like a first baseman, and play defense like a DH.

 

[Man]

No, it’s not – and you can’t make a case that it is.

Bull. If you say there is no right to health care then that is not relativism. But, then why should we pay for health care for the poor? It is then like a TV or a movie rental. You don’t have money, you can’t have it. Right?

What if you don’t have insurance or enough money then? Tough luck.

It there is a right to health care then that is a right we should all share.

That is not to say we should make it easy. The current system isn’t too bad in this regard. We continue to punish people with bankruptcy. The damage of bankruptcy in turn is often mitigated by understanding bankers.

People have a right to what they earn. Those who truly cannot earn must be cared for by the rest of us. But those who fail to contribute when they are capable of working consume charity that really should go to the truly deserving.

People will die while we attempt to discern their “deservingness.” In what way can we determine whether they are deserving or not? How well they did in school? How many resumes they sent out? That they worked rather than stayed at home with their children?

Right now in Illinois, you deserve if you are a child, old, or disabled. The rest are taken care of by the hospitals anyway, though their health suffers as a result of their paucity, leading to larger eventual bills for their lack of ability to pay and lack of public responsibility for routine care. The hospitals right is off, and charge everyone else the cost. This is fine except when hospitals close and physicians are forced out of business. They then, have taken up the cross of those they served…

Now, having answered your question, let me ask you one: Do people have a right to live off the labor of others, while neglecting to maximize their own gifts and contribute their share to the general welfare?

The answer is yes or no. And, if it is “no” then you have to accept the results as well.

Foolish question.

Have you “maximized your own gifts?” Or, have you chosen to do something else which is more pleasing to you? Have you had more success than others by luck or the work of your hands? When born was your situation equal to others you would deny care to?

The answer is the same…

In order to have justice, we must have a proper distribution of resources. In order to have justice, we must treat one another as we would be treated. We must have God.

 

[vern_humphrey]

If one wishes to live an austere subsistence lifestyle, including physical labor, do they have the right to do so without interference from the world?

Yes, they do. They also have to take resposibility for their decision.

I’ll give you a real-world example of some people I’m working with, with only the names changed.

“Tom” and “Sally” have three children. Tom is an over-the-road truckdriver and makes a good bit more than the median income. Sally is a Certified Nursing Assistant and makes a bit more than minimum wage. Between them, they are comfortably middle class – especially for this part of the country.

“Bill” is a convict. He was just paroled to a work-release program from his second term in prison. The terms of his parole are:

• He must complete the work-release program
• He must live in supervised housing.
• He cannot travel more thna 30 miles from his workplace.
• He must not use drugs or alcohol.
• He cannot operate a motor vehicle or have a drivers license.

Bill got bored, left the work release program and came to live with his mother – who is raising one of his children. Bill met Sally, who left Tom and came to live with Bill, bringing her three children with her (this is four childre and three adults living in a 2-bedroom, one bath home.) Sally enjoys Bill’s company so much that she used up all her vacation and sick leave to be with him. Tom has divorced Sally.

Bill and Sally decided to go to a liquor store. On the way home, they sampled their purchases freely and crashed into a tree. Bill was driving. The car (Sally’s car) was totaled. Both were hospitalized. Both had blood-alcohol limits way above the legal limit.

Sally, having used up her vacation and sickleave, is no longer drawing a paycheck. Bill has never drawn a paycheck. Tom is willing to support his children, but not his ex-wife.

Tell me what my obligations are to help these people.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Bull.

You consider that an appropriate remark on a Catholic forum?

What if you don’t have insurance or enough money then? Tough luck.

So you say.

It there is a right to health care then that is a right we should all share.

Share what? Share the obligations to the maximum extent of our gifts?

People will die while we attempt to discern their “deservingness.”

Does your doctor bill you before you’re treated? Or after?

If** before**, you have no obligation to pay for services not rendered. If after, we have plenty of time to determine who should pay the bill.

This is fine except when hospitals close and physicians are forced out of business. They then, have taken up the cross of those they served…

English translation?

Have you “maximized your own gifts?”

Pretty much – I got a college degree and two graduate degrees while working, and did some very nasty and difficult jobs in odd corners of the globe.

Or, have you chosen to do something else which is more pleasing to you? Have you had more success than others by luck or the work of your hands?

By my own efforts.

When born was your situation equal to others you would deny care to?

Who says I would deny care to anyone? I just want everyone to have the same obligation I have – to work hard and contribute my share.

In order to have justice, we must have a proper distribution of resources. In order to have justice, we must treat one another as we would be treated. We must have God.

Very pious statement – but in order to have justice we must follow Saint Paul:

12 We ask you, brothers, to respect those who are laboring among you and who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you,
13 and to show esteem for them with special love on account of their work. Be at peace among yourselves.
14 We urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, cheer the fainthearted, support the weak, be patient with all.

(1 Thessalonians, 5, 12-14)

7 For you know how one must imitate us. For we did not act in a disorderly way among you,
8 nor did we eat food received free from anyone. On the contrary, in toil and drudgery, night and day we worked, so as not to burden any of you.
9 Not that we do not have the right. Rather, we wanted to present ourselves as a model for you, so that you might imitate us.
10 In fact, when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat.
11 We hear that some are conducting themselves among you in a disorderly way, by not keeping busy but minding the business of others.
12 Such people we instruct and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to work quietly and to eat their own food.

(2 Thessalonians, 3, 7-12)

3 Honor widows who are truly widows.
4 But if a widow has children or grandchildren, let these first learn to perform their religious duty to their own family and to make recompense to their parents, for this is pleasing to God.
5 The real widow, who is all alone, has set her hope on God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day.
6 But the one who is self-indulgent is dead while she lives.
7 Command this, so that they may be irreproachable.
8 And whoever does not provide for relatives and especially family members has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
9 Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years old, married only once,
10 with a reputation for good works, namely, that she has raised children, practiced hospitality, washed the feet of the holy ones, helped those in distress, involved herself in every good work.
11 But exclude younger widows, for when their sensuality estranges them from Christ, they want to marry
12 and will incur condemnation for breaking their first pledge.
13 And furthermore, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers but gossips and busybodies as well, talking about things that ought not to be mentioned.
14 So I would like younger widows to marry, have children, and manage a home, so as to give the adversary no pretext for maligning us.
15 For some have already turned away to follow Satan.
16 If any woman believer 2 has widowed relatives, she must assist them; the church is not to be burdened, so that it will be able to help those who are truly widows.

(1 Timothy, 5, 3-16)

 

[Al_Masetti]

If health care is a “right”, then if no one wants to be a doctor (health care provider), should we draft people and force them to attend medcal school so they can provide health care?

 

[Trader]

I’ll give you a real-world example of some people I’m working with, with only the names changed.

“Tom” and “Sally” have three children. Tom is an over-the-road truckdriver and makes a good bit more than the median income. Sally is a Certified Nursing Assistant and makes a bit more than minimum wage. Between them, they are comfortably middle class – especially for this part of the country.

“Bill” is a convict. He was just paroled to a work-release program from his second term in prison. The terms of his parole are:

• He must complete the work-release program
• He must live in supervised housing.
• He cannot travel more thna 30 miles from his workplace.
• He must not use drugs or alcohol.
• He cannot operate a motor vehicle or have a drivers license.

Bill got bored, left the work release program and came to live with his mother – who is raising one of his children. Bill met Sally, who left Tom and came to live with Bill, bringing her three children with her (this is four childre and three adults living in a 2-bedroom, one bath home.) Sally enjoys Bill’s company so much that she used up all her vacation and sick leave to be with him. Tom has divorced Sally.

Bill and Sally decided to go to a liquor store. On the way home, they sampled their purchases freely and crashed into a tree. Bill was driving. The car (Sally’s car) was totaled. Both were hospitalized. Both had blood-alcohol limits way above the legal limit.

Sally, having used up her vacation and sickleave, is no longer drawing a paycheck. Bill has never drawn a paycheck. Tom is willing to support his children, but not his ex-wife.

Tell me what my obligations are to help these people.

Wow, this is pretty complicated. Could you make it a true/false question? I was good at those.

1. Tom has the obligation to support his children. He should have custody, He may have to change his occupation so he can be home every night. I hope he has other family members to help. In this scenario, Tom and especially the children are the victims.
2. Bill goes back to prison as an habitual offender. Society is better off paying for a long term stay than having him at large as a danger to others. The meager earnings he gets as an expert lisence plate maker go to the support of his children, even if his prison experience is pretty dismal without cigarettes or other treats
3. Bill’s mother is entitled some public aid to help raise her grandchild. It’s not a good situation, but better than the alternatives, given that her son made lots of bad choices. I did not see the mother of Bill’s children mentioned, but she also owes child support.
4. Sally owes child support for her children. She is an unfit mother, but maybe she can make the changes she needs to make for the sake of her children. Perhaps Sally has family who will help her for a limited time. If public aid is absolutely necessary, it should be in the form of a loan to be paid back with market rate interest. Sally faces many years of subsistence living unless she chooses to upgrade her skills. Nursing jobs pay quite well in today’s economy.

I know of a few real life situations with some of these elements. I did say that a person has to take responsibility for his decision. I would never say that anyone has the right to impose the negative consequences on his or her children. Every parent knows that having children is a life changing experience. Once you take on that responsibily, you cannot live like a single person for at least 18-22 years.

 

[vern_humphrey]

1. Tom has the obligation to support his children. He should have custody, He may have to change his occupation so he can be home every night. I hope he has other family members to help. In this scenario, Tom and especially the children are the victims.

Yep, but under our system, Sally can accuse Tom of child abuse, spousal abuse, and so on – which makes for a nasty and strung out legal process with consumes all the money Tom has and can make. And she’s already threatened to do just that.

1. Bill goes back to prison as an habitual offender. Society is better off paying for a long term stay than having him at large as a danger to others. The meager earnings he gets as an expert lisence plate maker go to the support of his children, even if his prison experience is pretty dismal without cigarettes or other treats

No argument there. But he’s not a violent offender – so he gets still another chance. And he’s still sponging off his mother and living with Sally and her kids.

1. Bill’s mother is entitled some public aid to help raise her grandchild. It’s not a good situation, but better than the alternatives, given that her son made lots of bad choices. I did not see the mother of Bill’s children mentioned, but she also owes child support.

Agreed – the mother of Bill’s child is a drug addict, however, and has no income.

1. Sally owes child support for her children. She is an unfit mother, but maybe she can make the changes she needs to make for the sake of her children. Perhaps Sally has family who will help her for a limited time. If public aid is absolutely necessary, it should be in the form of a loan to be paid back with market rate interest. Sally faces many years of subsistence living unless she chooses to upgrade her skills. Nursing jobs pay quite well in today’s economy.

Yes, we should make Sally responsible for her own living and for her share of her children’s living. But right now, she’s still living with Bill and his mother and we can’t make her change that.

I know of a few real life situations with some of these elements. I did say that a person has to take responsibility for his decision. I would never say that anyone has the right to impose the negative consequences on his or her children. Every parent knows that having children is a life changing experience. Once you take on that responsibily, you cannot live like a single person for at least 18-22 years.

The problem is, how do we get Bill and Sally and Bill’s girlfriend to take responsibility for their actions?

 

[Man]

You consider that an appropriate remark on a Catholic forum?

So you say.

Share what? Share the obligations to the maximum extent of our gifts?

Does your doctor bill you before you’re treated? Or after?

If** before**, you have no obligation to pay for services not rendered. If after, we have plenty of time to determine who should pay the bill.

English translation?

Pretty much – I got a college degree and two graduate degrees while working, and did some very nasty and difficult jobs in odd corners of the globe.

By my own efforts.

Who says I would deny care to anyone? I just want everyone to have the same obligation I have – to work hard and contribute my share.

Very pious statement – but in order to have justice we must follow Saint Paul:

(1 Thessalonians, 5, 12-14)

(2 Thessalonians, 3, 7-12)

(1 Timothy, 5, 3-16)

I could tell you were itching for a fight. Bull & Foolish are a result of what appears to be pride. Though I apologize.

This entire discussion revolves around what many Islamic nations see when they look at the US. They say that we worship, not God, but money.

Many times our, “maximizing” of our gifts has little to do with public service, it seems, and everything to do with collecting as much money as we can, and consuming as we will.

The world sees this as a deplorable situation. Many in the US blame Africans for their poverty, but how can they compete whatsoever? We use all the resources. Because of our money we have “first dibs” on every single thing that is dug out of the ground. When we pay them, we make them fight for the lowest wage, and we do this by expecting, ourselves, to pay the lowest price possible. Then, we make ethanol out of food while people starve. This, now, is almost and indivisible part of our culture. Thus, ones worth, is largely what they earn. If they don’t earn, they aren’t worthy. People like teachers look to the government for their well being, because while respected, they are generally paid poorly.

The same situation, in fact, occurs all over the US. Obviously poor inner city and rural cultures don’t get the education they need to do well in college. Their culture is partially at fault. So too, is the property tax system, often mitigated by education funds from the government. Those in the US though, have their oppression mitigated by society. They are FAR better off.

Paul is not saying that every person must create as much wealth and use as much stuff doing it as humanly possible. Rather it is that we must seek to provide for ourselves what we need. As with priests, however, some professions are not properly valued, and thus require support from the government or maybe better the people at large.

You should notice that I defend our current system. Our current culture, while also showing what is wrong with it. I don’t care if don’t agree. We don’t need revolutionaries and innovators, but defenders and cultivators.

We need to mitigate the naturally oppressive force of money.