How SHOULD Health Care Work?

[JimG]

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?

Good question. I saw a Cuban doctor being interviewed on TV. He had been shipped by Fidel to Venezuela to help Hugo support his workers paradise with imported cheap labor by drafted doctors. He snuck off to Columbia and is now trying to get into the U.S. by whatever means possible. When asked how many of Cuba’s doctors wanted to leave, he replied, “All of them.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

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

Ah, in your imagination, you think I have committed some offense?

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.

Which is relevant, how?

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.

And that means we have no responsibility to each other? None of us is obliged to work to contribute to the general welfare?

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.

How is this diatribe relevant to the subject under discussion?

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.

Why not? Don’t we have Public Schools for all children? And doesn’t the 14th Amendment entitle us all to equal protection under the law?

Their culture is partially at fault. So too, is the property tax system, often mitigated by education funds from the government.

I have to tell you that there is no valid, peer-reviewed study that shows a statistically significant correlation between dollars spent and educational quality. In fact, the Washington, DC, school system, arguably among the worst in the country, has the highest per-pupil expenditure.

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.

But he does say they must pull their own load – and those who will not work will not eat.

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.

So priests should be supported by the taxpayer? Or should we support them out of voluntary contributions?

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.

And one of their first jobs should be to see that all children get a world quality education, and eveyone who can supports himself and his family.

We need to mitigate the naturally oppressive force of money.

English translation?

 

[Trader]

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

I was only playing judge here. Now I pass it off to you with a quote from Old Hickory, “Mr Marshall has made his decision. Let him enforce it.”

This problem could drive well meaning people to the brink of despair. Before jumping into the abyss, I can only offer some really hard advice. The best tool we have is our own good example. Great societies(as opposed to “The Great Society”) are built one great family at a time.

When my maternal grandparents were ailing, their children cared for them. My grandfather retired from his law practice long before I was born. He lost a leg and his eyesight to diabetes in 1941. There was no Medicare or Social Security for him. My grandmother was at his side for 55 years.

When my paternal grandmother suffered from dementia, one of her daughers moved in with her and my mother cared for Grandma while my aunt went to her really boring factory job every day. Mom was able to care for her mother-in-law because she lived next door and had “only” four children at that time.

When one of our neighbors went to the mental hospital for several months, her three children stayed with us during the day until their father got back from work. Mom had “only” five children of her own then.

When another neighbor was called to active duty during the Vietnam War, his wife had to return to work. Their two children had lunch with us every day.

As Christians, we are called to transform society. One of our best tools for that is 2000 years old. “See how they love one another.”

“See how they take advantage of one another” is the mark of the society we are called to transform.

 

[Man]

Ah, in your imagination, you think I have committed some offense?

Which is relevant, how?

And that means we have no responsibility to each other? None of us is obliged to work to contribute to the general welfare?

How is this diatribe relevant to the subject under discussion?

Why not? Don’t we have Public Schools for all children? And doesn’t the 14th Amendment entitle us all to equal protection under the law?

I have to tell you that there is no valid, peer-reviewed study that shows a statistically significant correlation between dollars spent and educational quality. In fact, the Washington, DC, school system, arguably among the worst in the country, has the highest per-pupil expenditure.

But he does say they must pull their own load – and those who will not work will not eat.

So priests should be supported by the taxpayer? Or should we support them out of voluntary contributions?

And one of their first jobs should be to see that all children get a world quality education, and eveyone who can supports himself and his family.

English translation?

We shall see.

I am aware that money isn’t the issue with schools. Apparently parental support and support for parents is the major player in success.

I was illustrating the injustice of hoarding money.

The Church has never recognized the individuals right to resources better used by the community. Thus, taxation and so forth is fair practice…

“The destruction of the environment, its improper or selfish use, and the violent hoarding of the earth’s resources cause grievances, conflicts and wars, precisely because they are the consequences of an inhumane concept of development.” (Pope Benedict XVI, 2nd Message for the World Day of Peace, January 1, 2007)

Nonetheless, it is necessary for man’s well being that he give something in return for that which he is given. Essential to this is that most people do not want charity, they want opportunity. If they do want charity, it is important that it is not for reparation, but rather based on work they do that is otherwise not/under compensated.

This, perhaps, is a more proper method of judgment. If there is no opportunity, I don’t see how there can be judgment. And if there is insufficient opportunity, then, the only thing you know, is who got it, not who was most worthy. Thus, the impossibility of judging the poor.

It appears you must give them something to see what they do with it.

 

[boppaid]

If you actually visit a McDonald’s it will be obvious that many of those workers will still be covered by their parent’s policies. Others are on Medicare. Still others are part time workers covered under a spouse’s policy.
…If the McDonald’s worker is there because he has quit school and is not qualified for anything else, wouldn’t a better solution be to get him back in school and qualified for work that actually could support him and a family?

I know of a few McDonalds workers who are not on their parents’ insurance or medicare. One woman I know is a single mother who is trying to raise her children and all she is qualified for is this type of work. Going back to school is a wonderful option, but she simply doesn’t have time. She is working full time, and has to take care of 4 children in her SPARE time.

I also know another woman who works at McDonalds. She is the mother of 6. Her husband’s job doesn’t offer affordable health insurance. Her children are covered by the state. She and her husband are uninsured.

I know a man who works at Burger King because he lost his job to downsizing and hasn’t been able to find employment other than BQ since.

I think the days of students and senior citizens working fast food are in the past, quite frankly.

 

[Trader]

I know of a few McDonalds workers who are not on their parents’ insurance or medicare. One woman I know is a single mother who is trying to raise her children and all she is qualified for is this type of work. Going back to school is a wonderful option, but she simply doesn’t have time. She is working full time, and has to take care of 4 children in her SPARE time.

I also know another woman who works at McDonalds. She is the mother of 6. Her husband’s job doesn’t offer affordable health insurance. Her children are covered by the state. She and her husband are uninsured.

I know a man who works at Burger King because he lost his job to downsizing and hasn’t been able to find employment other than BQ since.

I think the days of students and senior citizens working fast food are in the past, quite frankly.

I forgot one other possibility. Some McDonald’s workers are there on second jobs, and might have health insurance from the primary job. The point is that are and should be many options available.

I know of a man who took a job in a retail store because he was homeless and unemployed after his wife commited perjury to have him thrown out of his home. The home was purchased with money the man earned and saved before he met the wife. He had been self employed working out of that home and his inventory was in the basement of that home, and all the office equipment was in the home office. The wife even went to the bank where the business account was located and secretly changed the title on the account from “Mr or Mrs X” to “Mr and Mrs X” so the husband could not access the funds he had already earned. All withdrawals required two signatures rather than one. Although the husband had substantial savings accumulated before marriage, access to those funds was limited by court order. Even a small inheritance from his parents was unavailable to him because he made the mistake of deposting it into a joint account.
He eventually got really screwed by the court in the divorce. Although the judge who heard the case got fired for nonfeasance, the only effect was that that particular judge was not able to hurt anyone else. It took that man many years to recover and live a semi-comfortable life.

That man was me. I do not know a living soul without some kind of challenge in life. Welcome to the real world.

A single woman not qualified for productive work who chooses to have four children does her children a grave injustice, as does the father/fathers involved. I really do feel sorry for her children. I feel much less sympathy for adults who do that to defenseless children. Maybe if she had better family and friends, she could have straightened out her life with just one child. Then again she might have continued to make the same bad choices and play the victim. A few sick people actually do that.

 

[whatevergirl]

Do you mean that for Michael Moore? Or Dr. Farrago? I honestly don’t think that the two would agree on much, except that they are both critics of aspects of the health care system.

lol–michael moore. He does make provocative movies, but I don’t like how he condemns the U.S. on so many levels…Why do you live here, then, if you loathe it so, Michael?

 

[cynic]

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.

incredibly arrogant and dimmissive statements. 51% of the working age population aren’t employed, and living of welfare in this scenario. The majority of workers are doing jobs that you would regard as ‘not maximising their potential’ but are nevertheless essential for the economy to function. They also pay tax.

 

[jman507]

incredibly arrogant and dimmissive statements. 51% of the working age population aren’t employed, and living of welfare in this scenario. The majority of workers are doing jobs that you would regard as ‘not maximising their potential’ but are nevertheless essential for the economy to function. They also pay tax.

They won’t be paying the bills for a neighborhood of people either, regardless of if they are abusing the system or not, that’s just a select few. Why even try to maximize your potential?

 

[Trader]

They won’t be paying the bills for a neighborhood of people either, regardless of if they are abusing the system or not, that’s just a select few. Why even try to maximize your potential?

Because if you don’t try Vern will make you feel bad and damage your precious self-esteem?

 

[Man]

They won’t be paying the bills for a neighborhood of people either, regardless of if they are abusing the system or not, that’s just a select few. Why even try to maximize your potential?

You have some right to success. But, success includes responsibility. I can get back to the thread thread here, I hit some difficult questions you can debate.

Some level of health care has to be determined to be the minimum right of persons in order for this to play out. That is what we have now, so this is not a stretch by any means.

The problem is the new technology is extremely expensive. Does that mean that we should not research it? Of course not.

Essentially, pay is required for those people who are to get the newest treatments. Interestingly todays system often offers them to rich and poor. The rich do indeed pay for the poor and the rich. But, this is a tough cookie for them to swallow, especially when it starts cutting into their mutual fund’s bottom line as well.

The problems occur when small hospitals and struggling hospitals are required to provide treatment for everyone, without assistance, or with red tape and incredibly low compensation.

I’ve seen hospitals close and physicians can have trouble getting by if a few patients refuse to pay.

In the end, the system has to understand that everyone’s situation is different. That is what the current system gets right -if you have money-.

If you don’t have money, then you should do your best to exercise your right responsibly.

That is why the government and businesses want people to pay some out-of-pocket for their medical treatments. It is also why there is a deductible and so forth. These things are attempts to keep medical prices reasonable.

Now, coming one the scene, are specialty shop hospitals that treat one condition, like knee and hip replacements. The problem is that they can’t always do emergency work for the patients they care for, and they take the most profitable surgeries away from the existing infrastructure that can.

This drives medical prices up. The entrepreneurs are rewarded handsomely for it too.

What does this result from?

It results from a mixture of primarily two things.

1. Greed - which is obvious and I won’t go into it.
2. “Parity” - These physicians are capable of doing the most profitable surgeries, however, the hospital keeps large amount of the profits for shareholders and pays the chief or chiefs of staff ridiculous wages.

In this situation, the most sensible thing for the doctor to do is to go in with some buddies and found a hospital. They can undercut the competition and still make tons of money.

On the other hand, the lack of insurance forces people who can’t pay to just show up at an ER for non-urgent care. Why? Because many doctors don’t take patients who can’t pay now and don’t have insurance. Why? Because their operating expenses are high, so that while their revenue is huge, and the wages considerable, a few empty time slots and people who don’t pay will cause them to rapidly go into the red.

Each problem needs cared for, and that’s why laws are so long and tedious. And thats why a revolution isn’t like to occur, and if it does, it is not likely to be just.

 

[Trader]

While I may not have direct involvement in the health care system, several members of my extended family do. One of my cousins uses his PHD in psychology as a lisenced pyychologist in private practice. Another cousin is a professor of biochemistry at a prestegious midwestern university(if you count the number of Nobel Prize winners, even though they have only one Heisman Trophy winner). Still another cousin is married to a man who teaches at two different medical schools, one public and one Catholic university. They are all pretty well paid.

They are not paid well because they are greedy. It is not even because they spent so much time and money on their own educations, which they did. They are paid well because what they do has real value to a lot of people who are willing to pay for it. They are part of a system that has improved and extended the lives of billions of people in the last half century. It would be a serious injustice if they were not well compensated for what they do.

In a previous post, I talked about my sister’s kidney transplant. 50 years ago kidney failure did not cost $700,000 to treat. The cost was quite reasonable and affordable for many people. The downside was that the condition killed you even though it was cheap. My sister would not have returned to work in six weeks, and she would not have to think about what to wear to her daughter’s wedding this fall. Rising costs for state of the art medical treatment is not brand new and is not likely to change.

For some reason too many people are way too slow to change their spending and saving priorities to recognize this reality. They are also way to slow to change their behavior to prevent some diseases. We have 25% of American adults smoking 43 years after the first US Surgeon General’s report on smoking and lung cancer. It has been about 20 years since US and French Government paid scientists identified the cause of AIDS, and gave us solid guidelines on how to prevent it. Special interest groups still claim we should spend more of someone else’s money to cure a disease we already know how to prevent.

 

[jman507]

Each problem needs cared for, and that’s why laws are so long and tedious. And thats why a revolution isn’t like to occur, and if it does, it is not likely to be just.

Yes that is all very true. I guess you wouldn’t be too far from me, when I say, that if your looking for systematic solutions, you will never end up satisfied.

There are two competing issues: on one hand you want people to have adequate access, care, and options, and on the other hand you need people to be prudent to avoid abuse of the system. There will be problems with sustaining the system so long as those who are capable of prudence and responsibility, do not use prudence and responsibility.

What good is a community goose that lays golden eggs, if people start to strangle the goose in an attempt to get the eggs?

 

[boppaid]

IA single woman not qualified for productive work who chooses to have four children does her children a grave injustice, as does the father/fathers involved. I really do feel sorry for her children. I feel much less sympathy for adults who do that to defenseless children. Maybe if she had better family and friends, she could have straightened out her life with just one child. Then again she might have continued to make the same bad choices and play the victim. A few sick people actually do that.

Bad choices? Grave injustice? Are you kidding me??? You PRESUME a little too much. Talk about stereotyping! She has four children because she is a “good Catholic”. She is a widow, sir.

See, this is what I’m talking about. Stereotyping. People in unfortunate situations got their on their own accord. Maybe. But maybe they got there while trying to do the right thing. Maybe they should have used birth control (one of the reasons I’m PRO abc~babies 3 & 4 were accidentally conceived while trying to learn NFP). But they didn’t because they were following the Church’s teaching.

B ack to the subject at hand. Even if we CAN place blame on individuals who made bad choices, what if they had a change of heart, and started making good choices but were caught in a cycle of poverty? What if they could not go back to school because they have children to raise and must work to feed them? For that matter, what about the children of continuously ignorant or hard-headed parents who continue to make poor choices?

Do you see what I’m saying here?

 

[Man]

They are not paid well because they are greedy. It is not even because they spent so much time and money on their own educations, which they did. They are paid well because what they do has real value to a lot of people who are willing to pay for it. They are part of a system that has improved and extended the lives of billions of people in the last half century. It would be a serious injustice if they were not well compensated for what they do.

When people first graduate medical school and become doctors, hospitals snap them up, pay them barely livable wages and work them for eighty hours a week.

 

[Man]

A single woman not qualified for productive work who chooses to have four children does her children a grave injustice, as does the father/fathers involved. I really do feel sorry for her children. I feel much less sympathy for adults who do that to defenseless children. Maybe if she had better family and friends, she could have straightened out her life with just one child. Then again she might have continued to make the same bad choices and play the victim. A few sick people actually do that.

This is ridiculous.

The little people are continuously criticized for having children. People even criticize the faithful who have children.

I hear this:“The world is overpopulated, there is not enough for you, you are so irresponsible.”
And the answer:“The problem isn’t the population, the problem is the consumption, you are so irresponsible.”

Many Americans will do anything to protect their right to consume. I love when Evangelicals discuss what “the Beast” is in the Revelation for this reason. If I can’t get them to read a commentary or footnote, I can just as easily argue that it is free capitalism.

Then theres:
We move somewhere we don’t know anybody, and then we don’t -really- care about anyone.

 

[Trader]

Bad choices? Grave injustice? Are you kidding me??? You PRESUME a little too much. Talk about stereotyping! She has four children because she is a “good Catholic”. She is a widow, sir.

See, this is what I’m talking about. Stereotyping. People in unfortunate situations got their on their own accord. Maybe. But maybe they got there while trying to do the right thing. Maybe they should have used birth control (one of the reasons I’m PRO abc~babies 3 & 4 were accidentally conceived while trying to learn NFP). But they didn’t because they were following the Church’s teaching.

B ack to the subject at hand. Even if we CAN place blame on individuals who made bad choices, what if they had a change of heart, and started making good choices but were caught in a cycle of poverty? What if they could not go back to school because they have children to raise and must work to feed them? For that matter, what about the children of continuously ignorant or hard-headed parents who continue to make poor choices?

Do you see what I’m saying here?

First of all, I presumed she was a single mother because you said she was a single mother. You did not say she was a widow. There is a difference. Social Security, private life insurance, private pensions, IRA’s, inheritance, and other finacial issues are much easier when the parents are married and paternity is legally established. When couples say that marriage is just a piece of paper and there is no difference between marriage and an unmarried relationship, they are objectively wrong. They are indeed doing their children and potential children a grave injustice.

Secondly, I was less than precise in my answer, and I know better. It is not a sin to get pregnant if not married. It is seriously wrong to RISK getting pregnant outside of marriage. The pregnancy would be the forseeable result of sin, not the sin itself. To call a pregnancy a sin would be like saying something is wrong only if you get caught. Unfortunately our legal system usually does act that way in most cases. What is moral and what is legal are rarely the same.

Yes, these are difficult cases. For strong families the best solution is help from the widow’s parents, inlaws, and siblings, neighbors, and church. That is a better solution than a government which will supply only financial help. No overworked social worker is going to love a child like a grandparent.

For the last group, “continuously ignorant or hard-headed parents who continue to make poor choices” the best of many bad choices is to rescue the children and permanently remove them from those parents. Because of the millions of abortions in recent years there is a shortage of adoptable children. Adoption is a better solution for the children than our “ping-pong” foster care or leaving the children with negligent and abusive parents.

 

[Trader]

When people first graduate medical school and become doctors, hospitals snap them up, pay them barely livable wages and work them for eighty hours a week.

So now those greedy doctors are victims? Recently minted doctors are still in training, and few professions pay inexperienced workers the same as those with experience. No one twisted their arms to enter those residency programs. In fact they vigorously compete for those residencies.

The long hours are a problem and this is slowly changing. It is not only dangerous to the young doctors and their families, it is a danger to the patients they are treating. It is possible for us to agree on some things.

 

[Man]

So now those greedy doctors are victims? Recently minted doctors are still in training, and few professions pay inexperienced workers the same as those with experience. No one twisted their arms to enter those residency programs. In fact they vigorously compete for those residencies.

The long hours are a problem and this is slowly changing. It is not only dangerous to the young doctors and their families, it is a danger to the patients they are treating. It is possible for us to agree on some things.

I am lost as to what you disagree with me about. It is in matters of economics and ethics. Some people are paid more, a lot more, and not everyone under them thinks that it is fair.

This is you itching for a fight:
"So now those greedy doctors are victims? " (I can hear it in a whine)
Well, I apologize, I didn’t realize that there where no greedy physicians.

You’re right many of them probably found new partially irresponsible specialty hospitals so that they can serve their patients better.

And if I say that this is still at the expense of the rest of the profession, society, and the system at large? Why don’t you ask you family members in the medical profession about that…

 

[vern_humphrey]

I was only playing judge here. Now I pass it off to you with a quote from Old Hickory, “Mr Marshall has made his decision. Let him enforce it.”

This problem could drive well meaning people to the brink of despair. Before jumping into the abyss, I can only offer some really hard advice. The best tool we have is our own good example. Great societies(as opposed to “The Great Society”) are built one great family at a time.

When my maternal grandparents were ailing, their children cared for them. My grandfather retired from his law practice long before I was born. He lost a leg and his eyesight to diabetes in 1941. There was no Medicare or Social Security for him. My grandmother was at his side for 55 years.

When my paternal grandmother suffered from dementia, one of her daughers moved in with her and my mother cared for Grandma while my aunt went to her really boring factory job every day. Mom was able to care for her mother-in-law because she lived next door and had “only” four children at that time.

When one of our neighbors went to the mental hospital for several months, her three children stayed with us during the day until their father got back from work. Mom had “only” five children of her own then.

When another neighbor was called to active duty during the Vietnam War, his wife had to return to work. Their two children had lunch with us every day.

As Christians, we are called to transform society. One of our best tools for that is 2000 years old. “See how they love one another.”

“See how they take advantage of one another” is the mark of the society we are called to transform.

Saint Paul laid it all our for us:

First, we should support ourselves. Who will not work, neither should he eat.

Then we should support our families. And who will not do this is worse than an unbeliever.

Then we should support more distant relatives.

Only when all these fail should the community be responsible for supporting those who cannot support themselves.

And finally, excessive charity has a debilitating effect on those who receive it – as well as draining resources from those who really need it.