Is healthcare a right or a responsibility?

[VonDerTann]

“Just raise taxes!” is an awfully simplistic response to any perceived problem. Candidly, “raise taxes” can usually be paraphrased as “raise someone else’s taxes to pay for what I want for free.” What you call “raising taxes on others,” I call “theft.”

Further, are you really suggesting that it “doesn’t make sense” to say that if medical care is free, more people will want/expect it, based on…prostate exams? I guess some misguided folks would refuse cancer surgery or whatever because “surgery will hurt!” or some silliness, but it’s not seriously arguable that if X valuable item is made free, people will take X more - whether X is food; medical care; or whatever.

And as for Europe…you admit there are limited healthcare resources. And I respond, “because those resources are free, causing higher demand and long waits!”

To see this from 50,000 feet, it looks like you really, really like the European model of free healthcare, paid for by taxes. If you like it, fine. But none of that addresses all sorts of problems, including all the questions/problems I raised above, which largely European healthcare has, that US healthcare doesn’t, i.e., wait times; death panels; healthcare delivery and decisions made by a far-off federal government, etc.

If European healthcare is what’s being offered, I’ll pass.

 

[Walk-worthy]

Yeah, it’s a debate. So if you say something that is intended to make a point and that something is wrong, you shouldn’t expect to be lectured. But you should expect to be corrected.

I’m going to have to leave it there. I said what I believe to be the truth about this story. I do appreciate your views.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

. If anything, cheaper insurance just gets people to visit the ER more, not less.

I’m not so sure of that and here’s why…
Your typical “frequent flyer” to the ER is somebody who couldn’t afford routine checkups and regular screenings or medications, so they wait until their symptoms are really bad then head to the ER.
If they could get diagnosed treated early enough at a reasonable price, it would reduce ER visits.
(Note, I’m not talking about the drug seekers)

 

[VonDerTann]

Possibly. I admit I’d be curious to see if this could be backed up by statistics.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

I’m not sure if anybody has done a study per se.
But an ER isn’t a one-stop shop for all needs medical.

Somebody upthread mentioned about prostate exams—there’s an example. A healthy man in no apparent distress isn’t going to simply walk into an ER and be given a routine prostate exam.
You can’t get your kiddos vaccinated there.
You can’t get your employment check-ups there.
And they DO NOT want to see you showing up in labor.

You have to be actually sick to get care at an ER.

 

[VonDerTann]

If your argument is, “if people have insurance they’ll use ERs less because they’ll go get routine screenings, checkups, etc., elsewhere,” I might agree with that. That may be where you’re headed.

That’s why I said, if we want to talk about insurance costs, we can do that. I don’t think I’d argue that people need insurance. Someone who likes the European model would favor “forced insurance,” AKA free care via taxes.

That said, I’ll never forget going to get an annual physical once. As I was waiting, I saw some man drive up in a huge new SUV. When he got to the desk he was asked, “what is your insurance,” and he said somewhat furtively, “no insurance.” OK, he pays from his own pocket. I’ve never forgotten that, 15+ years later. Now, I shouldn’t have to cover his medical treatment, via my taxes, as he drives his huge SUV home.

 

[Hume]

Re: European Health Care,

1. We can’t just lump them all together. Some are socialized at the provider level. So providers are government employees. Some are socialized at the insurance level, which is what America will eventually do.
2. There are no “death panels”.
   Now, if you mean to say that there’s a point where they stop funding care, then we have that too. It’s called a private insurance company and hitting your benefit maximum.
3. Care is only “scheduled” for non-emergency procedures with high demand. This is how they control scarcity. We just do it through cost.

It’s worth noting where I live roughly 80% of medical and dental revenue comes from Medicaid and Medicare. For all intents and purposes, where I live it’s already socialized.

 

[Leek]

I’m part of a Facebook group for a rare disease. I see posts all the time from Americans complaining their insurance company turned them down for MRIs/CT scans because what they have doesn’t fit into the definition the company is using. I’ve never had a problem in Canada, I’ve gotten every scan my doctor felt was needed.

Also, when people are needing treatment they’re still having high bills even with insurance? I’ve never had to pay more more than parking.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

Honestly, you are comparing apples and oranges.

I’m not dissing the NYPD. I’m simply responding to the incorrect claim that the federal government “Does nothing cost effectively. Nothing.” That’s simply untrue, as your own post makes clear.

Sure, but any organization (govt or corporate) becomes increasingly inefficient the larger it gets. Centralization has some pros, but it also has a lot of cons, namely the inability to quickly adapt to local circumstances & the swelling of middle management.

If the FBI took over all law enforcement in the entire nation, somethings might become more efficient but other things would become less efficient.

 

[VonDerTann]

Canada is interesting. Its system differs somewhat from the US, in part because of different cultural norms. I’d offer this:

–If I quote from a Wharton School of Finance paper, “ordinary people in Canada are healthier than in the US, but outcomes for cancer and very serious illnesses are less good there. It’s a great place to live as long as you don’t get too sick.” If we’re debating a Catholic response to health care, shouldn’t we place emphasis, as the US does, on essentially giving everyone the longest life we can, even when costs skyrocket?

–Canadians have longer wait times for things like joint replacements. This flows from greater emphasis on primary care but less for specialized care.

–I saved the best for the last: In Canada, if you don’t like wait times, or need specialized care, what do you do? Come to the US! Again, I’m quoting a paper from the Wharton School at UPenn, so I’m not flying by the seat of my pants here. The article cites Canadians as seeing the USA as a “safety valve” for their own system, i.e., Canada’s great but come to the US for care if needed.

–I’d add: The foregoing reinforces my position that the US healthcare system is the gold standard for the world: When you’re foreign and you need the best care, you come to the USA to get it.

 

[KMC]

VonDerTann:

–If food is free, people eat more. If medical care is free, people want it more. If anything, cheaper insurance just gets people to visit the ER more, not less.

That does not make sense. No one enjoys a prostate exam even if it is free.

I have a close relative who is a doctor. Their experience is that people without insurance come into the emergency room for relatively mild things. They recommend charging something…because with no skin in the game, they are choosing the highest cost method of healthcare.

 

[jeannetherese]

It is not endless. It is longer for some things than for others because of limited resources. The alternative is to have health care delivered immediately to those who can afford it and not at all to those who cannot.

All types of systems ration health care. In the brief Canadian broadcasting System video posted below, Dr. Nathan Small, a geriatrician from Sinai Health System, describes long term care residences in Canada as chronically neglected.

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1728357443588

 

[o_mlly]

You’re like Job’s friends who keep insisting that Job must have sinned because if they acknowledge that Job did nothing to deserve his sufferings it means that bad things can happen to good people and they can no longer feel confident that nothing bad will ever happen to them.

Job got the best health care treatment available at the time. And, he recovered.

Yes, bad things happen sometimes to good people. On the other hand, we know that bad things happen to bad people. Bad in the sense that lifestyles matter in health care costs. The incidence of disease cannot be fully predicted but science can tell us that certain lifestyles will more likely cause disease and increase the cost of health care. Who should bear the costs of unhealthy lifestyles?

The right to health care is not an absolute right. In the Catholic scheme of justice, the community owes to the individual the basic health care necessary to live a decent life. That obligation on the community is conditional.

Contributive justice, as opposed to distributive justice, is the responsibility each of us has to contribute to society, to our collective well being. Those who live lifestyles that are known to increase the health care costs to society breach their duty to contribute to the commonweal. Of course, we will not just step over their dead bodies in the street but neither should their injustice be lightly stepped over. Federalizing health care costs does just that. Localizing health care costs puts those who must pay in the faces of those who abuse. I submit hat doing so will more likely reduce the health care costs to society.

 

[upant]

What? Please cite the case where this was held. I’d love to read it.

The Police are Not Required to Protect You — Barnes Law

the cases usually sited are

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services

DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 (1989), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 22, 1989. The court held that a state government agency’s failure to prevent child abuse by a custodial parent does not violate the child’s right to liberty for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

and

Castle Rock v. Gonzales,

Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman’s three children by her estranged husband. (wiki)

The Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit’s decision, reinstating the District Court’s order of dismissal. The Court’s majority opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia held that enforcement of the restraining order was not mandatory under Colorado law; were a mandate for enforcement to exist, it would not create an individual right to enforcement that could be considered a protected entitlement under the precedent of Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth; and even if there were a protected individual entitlement to enforcement of a restraining order, such entitlement would have no monetary value and hence would not count as property for the Due Process Clause. (wiki)

As this case is the latest in a line of high-profile cases, such as DeShaney v. Winnebago County, in which lawsuits against governmental entities for failure to prevent harm to an individual were dismissed, it has also been used by gun rights advocates in the United States to add additional weight to the self-defense argument for private gun ownership. (wiki)

 

[upant]

Is the pandemic going to kick start another universal healthcare debate? Some say it will. I’m curious how other Catholics respond to this question.

when does something become a right or responsibility? was healthcare a right or responsibility in 1820?

 

[KMC]

If you want a well-built city, you don’t tell the citizens, “Each of you go home and build your own house by yourself; then we’ll scale up from there.” You build structures that are designed to handle the large city and are capable of doing it.

Nor do you continue to trust politicians who claim they can save you money…when they never do. To use your analogy, if you want a well-built city, you don’t hire people to build it that have never build any well-built buildings! Barack Obama promised that that his plan would decrease employer offered healthcare premiums by 3000% Did that happen?

Your accusation was that the federal government cannot ever do anything efficiently. That’s demonstrably untrue.

examples? You seem to imply there are numerous significant government programs that save money. Please list them here.

As for your $33 trillion claim, Conover was playing with the data. The $33 trillion he claims to be underfunded is over the next 75 years. That works out to about $1,257 per American per year ($33 trillion / 75 years / 350 million Americans = $1,257.14). To put that in context, under the current system, which wastes 17% on administrative costs and has to make a profit for the “Pharma Bro”s of the world, we’re already spending $3.6 trillion a year, which is roughly $11,000 per person.

To put that into context: medicare loses money every year, no matter how you slice it. AND, that’s even with them piggybacking off of Social Security’s back office support. So the losses, if properly assigned, are higher.

Bottom line: the nation as a whole would save money; we would provide health care to all rather than just those who can afford to pay for it; and we would all be better off (except for the people who have a financial interest in maintaining the current system, like the health insurance companies).

Bottom line is Medicare operates at a loss right now…and you are arguing for more of it.
I’m not married to the current private insurance system…perhaps there is a better way. But telling America to trust the government yet once again is not something I’m willing to do, unless they can prove on a smaller scale that they have the ability to deliver on a promise.

 

[blackforest]

Is the pandemic going to kick start another universal healthcare debate?

It should, although if you’ll permit me one nitpick, I take issue with the thread title. Seeking healthcare for preventative or follow-up care is taking responsibility for one’s health. Without that guaranteed right, we cannot take responsibility.

Hospitals will work with you on creating payment schedules and may even forgive your debt. I have helped someone in this circumstance and watched 10s of thousands of dollars being forgiven.

The most significant way to make healthcare more affordable is for the providers to lower their costs. Because they have no financial incentive to fix their price inflation, a major intervention will be necessary.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

If food is free, people eat more. If medical care is free, people want it more.

People enjoy eating not going to the doctor.

 

[Anrakyr]

If food is free, people eat more. If medical care is free, people want it more.

I never understood the concept “if it’s free people will do/take/consume till it’s too much.”

Most of us learn “too much of a good thing” as children.

 

[blackforest]

I never understood the concept “if it’s free people will do/take/consume till it’s too much.”

Really? I was really looking forward to embarking upon an orgy of frivolous body scans and exploratory surgery . . .