How SHOULD Health Care Work?

[boppaid]

When did I blame it on welfare? My question was, “How do we help these people?”

Vern, I responded to your saying, “But in the meantime, the system actively promotes the poverty cycle and makes those who work responsible for the reckless behavior of those who don’t – which feeds the poverty cycle”. Doesn’t that sound like you’re blaming the welfare system?

What grounds?

That she left her husband? She accused him of abusing the children.

On the grounds of abuse and neglect. Those were your words, right? She abused and neglected them?

How do we prove it?

Didn’t you say an investigation is going on? I’m so confused. This story seems so strange. Is there an investigation going on or not? Isn’t an investigation what is needed to prove or disprove anything? How in the heck can you expect me to decide if the social services system is being fair to man I only know through your sporadic pieces of information?

Or perhaps a perfectly normal person.

Perhaps. Again, let the courts decide…you and I have no way of knowing.

Why I think it is wrong for you to suddenly assume his supposed “guilt.” There is no proof against him, only an allegation by a person whose own interests are served by that allegation.

I do NOT assume he is guilty. I am trying to tell you (over and over and over again) that neither you nor I know one way or another. I pray that if he is innocent, this matter is cleared up through the system quickly. It is a sin as to how long these matters take. Truly. I haven’t given you my opinion on the courts in these situations. Well, let me give you some insight into my views on this, for the first time on this thread…I agree with you that they are extremely inefficient. You have no argument with me there! I was just trying to stay off that subject, as that is not the subject of this thread.

Which may take years.

Okay, so your beef is with our court system now? Fine. Why are you debating the court system with me? That is not the topic of this thread, and you don’t even know my stance on how I feel the courts are run. What does ANY of this have to do with health care? You are so far off on a tangent, my head is spinning.

You’re debating things with me, based on how you THINK I feel. Child Protective Services. The legal system. Child Molestation charges. Geesh. You don’t have anything to debate with me on this, other than what you are ASSUMING I believe. I’ve never even discussed my feelings on those topics because they aren’t the topic at hand.

I did delve into welfare with you. But, discussing Tom’s situation with the courts and his silly wife do not change my view…that we properly feed, clothe, and provide health care to those who do not (especially the children) until the adults have found adequate means to do so themselves. Now, pay close attention to this, because you seem to miss this point: Currently, the welfare system does not, in my opinion, do an adequate job of ensuring that people are looking for work or ways to better their situation. This needs to change. Regardless, I still believe we have a responsibility to ensure that in a country as rich as ours, where we spend big bucks building schools and providing health care in other countries, and there is GREAT personal wealth as well, can take care of those who have nothing.

 

[boppaid]

Vern, I just want to add that it seems you are getting upset here. I’m not trying to upset you. I’m trying to debate health care with you. I’d love to continue a friendly, respectful debate. But I’d also love to stick to the topic at hand…health care. I’ll even go into welfare with you, since we did veer in that direction. But all this other stuff is irrelevant, and seems to be upsetting you.

YOu and I are fellow Christians, who love the Lord. I’m sure you also love our fellow man…as God does. We should focus on the common ground we have, and think of ways to BETTER the current welfare system we have, and ways to make sure none of our brothers and sisters are starving or without adequate care. Even our brothers and sisters in sin. Agreed, we can’t give them handouts without a commitment on their part to better their lives. Again, more common ground for you and I. So instead of arguing over whether child protective services has an efficient and fair system, let’s focus on how we can better this country and better those caught in the sad cycle of poverty.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Doesn’t that sound like you’re blaming the welfare system?

Wow! You broke the code!

Yes, I do blame the welfare system. It does perpetuate the poverty cycle. How else do we explain having three or four generations of the same family on welfare?

On the grounds of abuse and neglect. Those were your words, right? She abused and neglected them?

And who will make the complaint? Who actually saw what everyone suspects?

We **know **Bill’s child is messed up psychologically, but the system hasn’t done anything about that, except medicate him. We know Bill is a convicted felon, but the system doesn’t take children away from such fellons on those grounds alone. We know Bill and Sally were drunk when the car crashed – but the system doesn’t take children away from their mothers on those grounds alone.

Didn’t you say an investigation is going on?

Let me explain – we** know** she made the complaint. We know he is barred from seeing the children – the law requires that when the complaint is made. We are not allowed, however, to inquire into the mechanics of the investigation. And we know such investigations may take years.

I pray that if he is innocent, this matter is cleared up through the system quickly. It is a sin as to how long these matters take.

Yep – but it keeps hordes of bureaucrats employed.

. You have no argument with me there! I was just trying to stay off that subject, as that is not the subject of this thread.

To tie it back to the subject of the thread – would a single-payer health insurance system be any more efficient?

Okay, so your beef is with our court system now? Fine. Why are you debating the court system with me?

Because you brought it up, of course!

That is not the topic of this thread, and you don’t even know my stance on how I feel the courts are run. What does ANY of this have to do with health care? You are so far off on a tangent, my head is spinning.

We see that welfare, courts, child welfare, and so on are all inter-related. We see how the bureaucracy makes things worse, not better.

Do we want to turn eveyrone’s healthcare over to the same bureaucracy? The one that doesn’t send a convicted felon back to prison when he violates his parole? The one that doesn’t allow a father to have contact with his children, based on an unsubstantiated complaint? The one that will not impose work requirements or repayment of debt on someone who screwed up like Sally did?

You’re debating things with me, based on how you THINK I feel. Child Protective Services. The legal system. Child Molestation charges. Geesh. You don’t have anything to debate with me on this, other than what you are ASSUMING I believe. I’ve never even discussed my feelings on those topics because they aren’t the topic at hand.

Where did I tell you what you think?

I didn’t. When you made comments like “He should go back to prison for parole violation” or “she should pay back the money she gets” I merely pointed out that the system doesn’t work that way.

I did delve into welfare with you. But, discussing Tom’s situation with the courts and his silly wife do not change my view…that we properly feed, clothe, and provide health care to those who do not (especially the children) until the adults have found adequate means to do so themselves.

And if they never find adequate means? As in families that have been on welfare for three or four generations?

Now, pay close attention to this, because you seem to miss this point: Currently, the welfare system does not, in my opinion, do an adequate job of ensuring that people are looking for work or ways to better their situation. This needs to change. Regardless, I still believe we have a responsibility to ensure that in a country as rich as ours, where we spend big bucks building schools and providing health care in other countries, and there is GREAT personal wealth as well, can take care of those who have nothing.

And this great health care system should be run by the same bureaucrats who won’t send a convicted felon back to prison when he violates his parole? Who won’t allow a father to have contact with his children, based on an unsubstantiated complaint? Who won’t impose work requirements or repayment of debt on someone who screwed up like Sally did?

And by putting more of our system into their incompetent hands, we’ll make things all better?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, I just want to add that it seems you are getting upset here.

I’m not upset. I’m a guy who wrestles with the bureaucracy in cases like this regularly and I see how they often make things worse, not better.

I’m not trying to upset you.

You couldn’t do that if you tried.

I’m trying to debate health care with you. I’d love to continue a friendly, respectful debate. But I’d also love to stick to the topic at hand…health care. I’ll even go into welfare with you, since we did veer in that direction. But all this other stuff is irrelevant, and seems to be upsetting you.

It is neither irrelevant nor upsetting (to me at least.) It is relevant because it illustrates how all these myriad government bureaucracies interrelate and how they fail to solve problems, despite the money we pour into them.

YOu and I are fellow Christians, who love the Lord. I’m sure you also love our fellow man…as God does. We should focus on the common ground we have, and think of ways to BETTER the current welfare system we have, and ways to make sure none of our brothers and sisters are starving or without adequate care.

And I’ve been doing this on this thread – you recall all the points of the program I recommend, from MSAs to holding foreign nations to account for drug price-fixing.

Even our brothers and sisters in sin. Agreed, we can’t give them handouts without a commitment on their part to better their lives. Again, more common ground for you and I. So instead of arguing over whether child protective services has an efficient and fair system, let’s focus on how we can better this country and better those caught in the sad cycle of poverty.

In the end, we have done more damage with our welfare system than good – and that’s true whether the aspect is medical or not.

 

[boppaid]

I’m not upset. …You couldn’t do that if you tried.

Good. Because you were sounding upset to me. I was starting to feel bad. I get passionate about this, and it’s clear that you do as well. That is evidence, at least. that you and I both care.

It is neither irrelevant nor upsetting (to me at least.) It is relevant because it illustrates how all these myriad government bureaucracies interrelate and how they fail to solve problems, despite the money we pour into them.

Gotcha. I wish you would have told me that’s where you were going, because it just wasn’t evident to me. My head was spinning watching you go off in so many directions! Well, yes, there are problems with government bureaucracies. I just don’t think you throw the baby out with the bathwater. You work to improve government systems. You don’t eliminate them.

And I’ve been doing this on this thread – you recall all the points of the program I recommend, from MSAs to holding foreign nations to account for drug price-fixing.

And if you recall, I LIKED that idea. Why are we still arguing?

in the end, we have done more damage with our welfare system than good – and that’s true whether the aspect is medical or not.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one, as I just don’t find that to be the case. I’ve watched the welfare system save the lives of people very close to me. And they have flourished.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Gotcha. I wish you would have told me that’s where you were going, because it just wasn’t evident to me. My head was spinning watching you go off in so many directions! Well, yes, there are problems with government bureaucracies. I just don’t think you throw the baby out with the bathwater. You work to improve government systems. You don’t eliminate them.

That’s not bath water – it’s the chamber pot. There’s no baby in there, and we won’t make things better if we put one in.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one, as I just don’t find that to be the case. I’ve watched the welfare system save the lives of people very close to me. And they have flourished.

Then why do we have multi-generations on welfare?

 

[whatevergirl]

I think it’s quite possible that welfare can help many–while others abuse it. That’s true for just about anything in life. Some abuse the help they are given, others use it to bolster themselves out of the pit of despair. We should not do away with welfare…we should just put limits on it for those who are capable of working. It should be somewhat similiar to unemployment’s regulations. You need to be meeting with someone regularly…going over where you’re looking for work, etc…not just an eternity on welfare when you could be working. So, welfare in and of itself is not a bad concept…it’s just not used correctly in today’s system…limits would help to curb the generational dependencies on it.

Just my $.02:shrug:

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think it’s quite possible that welfare can help many–while others abuse it.

And yet we have multiple generations of the same family on welfare.

In the 1950s, we were better off by many measures – less crime, less drugs, less out-of-wedlock pregnancies. We did have more poverty – but the poverty rate was dropping like a stone.

Then came the Great Society and the War on poverty. Crime, drug useage and out-of-wedlock pregnancies all went up, and poverty stopped dropping.

That’s true for just about anything in life. Some abuse the help they are given, others use it to bolster themselves out of the pit of despair. We should not do away with welfare…we should just put limits on it for those who are capable of working. It should be somewhat similiar to unemployment’s regulations. You need to be meeting with someone regularly…going over where you’re looking for work, etc…not just an eternity on welfare when you could be working. So, welfare in and of itself is not a bad concept…it’s just not used correctly in today’s system…limits would help to curb the generational dependencies on it.

Just my $.02:shrug:

Communism is not a “bad concept” – it just doesn’t work.

 

[whatevergirl]

And yet we have multiple generations of the same family on welfare.

In the 1950s, we were better off by many measures – less crime, less drugs, less out-of-wedlock pregnancies. We did have more poverty – but the poverty rate was dropping like a stone.

Then came the Great Society and the War on poverty. Crime, drug useage and out-of-wedlock pregnancies all went up, and poverty stopped dropping.

Communism is not a “bad concept” – it just doesn’t work.

People also were more religious…and Catholicism was never mocked in the media or in social circles. I think when we tear down religion…we start to see the tearing down of just common sense values.

When was Bishop Sheen’s tv show at an all time high? Was it in the 50’s or 60’s? I can’t remember now.

 

[whatevergirl]

And yet we have multiple generations of the same family on welfare.

In the 1950s, we were better off by many measures – less crime, less drugs, less out-of-wedlock pregnancies. We did have more poverty – but the poverty rate was dropping like a stone.

Then came the Great Society and the War on poverty. Crime, drug useage and out-of-wedlock pregnancies all went up, and poverty stopped dropping.

Communism is not a “bad concept” – it just doesn’t work.

I wonder if it really was less, or we just didn’t hear about it like today? Our media is up to the minute every minute…so we hear about stats, tragedies, problems with society more than we ever would have back in the 50’s. I was born in the late 60’s, but my husband seems to think that these things were going on (maybe not at the rate it is now) and that we just didn’t hear about it like now. But, there’s no disputing that there seemed to be a moral code back then, that is lacking nowadays.

 

[emily47017]

I’m assuming Sally still has health insurance as she is a Certified Nursing Assistant.

alas, i wish we could assume that… i saw somewhere that 1 in 8 health care workers don’t have insurance? i can’t remember where i read that, but i’ll get back to y’all with the link.

Vern, just out of curiosity, how did we get from health care plans to welfare? I’m enjoying your real life scenario here, but I’m wondering if we should either get to the topic at hand, or move it to a ‘welfare reform’ thread.

YES! YES PLEASE!

 

[vern_humphrey]

I wonder if it really was less, or we just didn’t hear about it like today?

Definitely less. People report serious crimes, regardless of era. Teenage pregnancies tended to result in live births – which are recorded. And drug use was confined to small segments of the population.

Our media is up to the minute every minute…so we hear about stats, tragedies, problems with society more than we ever would have back in the 50’s. I was born in the late 60’s, but my husband seems to think that these things were going on (maybe not at the rate it is now) and that we just didn’t hear about it like now.

There is a difference between media reports and statistics. We can rely on official records for statistics – we don’t go by the media. I can remember when ther was such a thing as a “crime wave” – and criminologists pointed out in vain that there was no such thing – when the media started reporting crimes more frequently, a “crime wave” was created.

But, there’s no disputing that there seemed to be a moral code back then, that is lacking nowadays.

Moral codes are no longer “relevant.” If you use the word “morality” you are “trying to impose your morals on everyone else.” And perish forbid anyone should have a “guilt trip” laid on them – regardless of how guilty they might be.

 

[vern_humphrey]

alas, i wish we could assume that… i saw somewhere that 1 in 8 health care workers don’t have insurance? i can’t remember where i read that, but i’ll get back to y’all with the link.

YES! YES PLEASE!

Go to post 383:

It is neither irrelevant nor upsetting (to me at least.) It is relevant because it illustrates how all these myriad government bureaucracies interrelate and how they fail to solve problems, despite the money we pour into them.

Are we to create another such bureaucracy to “solve” our health care problems?

And how will that bureaucracy be any more responsive, competent, or caring than those bureaucracies?

 

[emily47017]

Not quite compareable.

By defintion, a single payer is just that, single. There is no alternative.

With private insurers, there are multiple placeses to go. If one insurer doesn’t value you one is free to choose another payer.

That is not possible in a single payer system, by definition

unfortunately, once you discover that an insurer doesn’t value you, you’re probably already suffering from a pre-existing condition that would automatically disqualify you for a new plan. there’s a set of conditions a mile long that the industry pretty much agrees isn’t worth the risk… or maybe you’re already dying.

shopping around for plans isn’t as easy as one might like; employers usually offer just a few options, and paying retail for their own plan is simply impossible for most middle class families. of course there’s pre-existing conditions that disqualify. then there’s demographic variables (age, sex, race (yes: race), region, body weight, etc.) that can either disqualify or increase premiums… if they somehow manage to change plans to their satisfaction, they will likely have to change doctors, which involves masses of paperwork and telling the whole story of their lives all over again. if they’re already dealing with, say, a complicated pregnancy for mom or type I diabetes for one child and severe asthma for another, the upheaval can seriously disrupt ongoing treatment. it’s not a comparison shopping experience one could undertake with confidence and full empowerment.

plus: the government is accountable to the public for its policies and actions. a private insurance company, not so much. if you’ve been mistreated, your only recourse is through the civil justice system, and the people defending our current health care system are the same people advocating for tort “reform” to make it harder for regular folks to access the courts.

so given a choice of 1) trying to find another plan, trying to get acquainted with a new doctor, trying to sue the old insurance provider and dealing day to day with whatever illness has presented itself, and 2) calling my congressman (rep. inslee, how do i love thee?) and asking him to go to bat for me, i’d choose the second option any day.

 

[boppaid]

That’s not bath water – it’s the chamber pot. There’s no baby in there, and we won’t make things better if we put one in.

Then why do we have multi-generations on welfare?

For two reasons. First, the system is flawed. Second, there will always be poverty. I may be wrong, but I could swear that’s even in scripture. Sometimes, despite your best efforts, poverty will still be there.

 

[vern_humphrey]

so given a choice of 1) trying to find another plan, trying to get acquainted with a new doctor, trying to sue the old insurance provider and dealing day to day with whatever illness has presented itself, and 2) calling my congressman (rep. inslee, how do i love thee?) and asking him to go to bat for me, i’d choose the second option any day.

So how long were you in the hospital after Representative Inslee took out your appendix?

 

[whatevergirl]

Definitely less. People report serious crimes, regardless of era. Teenage pregnancies tended to result in live births – which are recorded. And drug use was confined to small segments of the population.

There is a difference between media reports and statistics. We can rely on official records for statistics – we don’t go by the media. I can remember when ther was such a thing as a “crime wave” – and criminologists pointed out in vain that there was no such thing – when the media started reporting crimes more frequently, a “crime wave” was created.

Moral codes are no longer “relevant.” If you use the word “morality” you are “trying to impose your morals on everyone else.” And perish forbid anyone should have a “guilt trip” laid on them – regardless of how guilty they might be.

unfortunately, the media…can be seen by many as Gospel truth.

 

[emily47017]

So how long were you in the hospital after Representative Inslee took out your appendix?

now *that’s *an image i didn’t need…

 

[vern_humphrey]

For two reasons. First, the system is flawed. Second, there will always be poverty. I may be wrong, but I could swear that’s even in scripture. Sometimes, despite your best efforts, poverty will still be there.

Jesus said, “The poor you have with you always.”

And forty thousand poverty program bureaucrats roared back, “We will if we have anything to do with it!”

But the question is not will there always be poor people, but how many will there be?

I have asked this question before – Charity is addressing the Corporal Works of Mercy. Social Justice (which is what this forum is all about) is changing conditions so we don’t need so much charity.

We have thousands of Charity programs, from food stamps to raising the minimum wage. Name a Social Justice program.

 

[vern_humphrey]

For two reasons. First, the system is flawed. Second, there will always be poverty. I may be wrong, but I could swear that’s even in scripture. Sometimes, despite your best efforts, poverty will still be there.

Jesus said, “The poor you have with you always.”

And forty thousand poverty program bureaucrats roared back, “We will if we have anything to do with it!”

But the question is not will there always be poor people, but how many will there be?

I have asked this question before – Charity is addressing the Corporal Works of Mercy. Social Justice (which is what this forum is all about) is changing conditions so we don’t need so much charity.

We have thousands of Charity programs, from food stamps to raising the minimum wage. Name a Social Justice program.