Judge rules Obamacare unconstitutional, endangering coverage for 20 million

[Ridgerunner]

If the bishops consider the HHS Mandate moral, okay.

“The bishops” have never registered in on Obamacare, one way or another. Some who have access to USCCB stationery have. But they don’t speak for all bishops. Statements of the USCCB are not mandatory on Catholics unless voted on by all bishops and approved by the Vatican. That has never happened with regard to Obamacare.

 

[Metis1]

VERY well said, imo.

 

[DENNYINMI]

“The bishops” have never registered in on Obamacare, one way or another. Some who have access to USCCB stationery have. But they don’t speak for all bishops. Statements of the USCCB are not mandatory on Catholics unless voted on by all bishops and approved by the Vatican. That has never happened with regard to Obamacare.

They (up to the Pope) have registered in on universal healthcare for the United States, which is the last country considered of advanced countries that is a hold out.

Note we did not say the ACA (although most felt it was a stepping stone in the right direction, as do I) I did say universal health care.

The Church has stood for Universal Health Care coverage (as usual She is ahead of her time) as early as 1919!

She recognized it as important as food, shelter, employment, support for ones livelihood, and freedom of religion which is encompassed in Rerum Novarum when they took on the concepts of socialism and unbridled capitalism.

We don’t need to re-invent the wheel, the ACA could be tweaked to make it better, or a system where health care is truly affordable, non restrictive to pre-existing conditions, and doctor-patient focused whereby removing third party determination inclined towards profit is a by-gone era.

Either we’re in this together, or we’re not.

 

[Inisfallen]

Unfortunately, there’s no list of enumerated powers in the Gospels. So we, guided by the Church, have to do the best we can in applying His teaching to the world in which we live.

 

[Ridgerunner]

What is “universal healthcare” in practical terms? What is it in France, for example (a non-holdout). In France, you pay your bill at the time of service. (except hospital care, but that’s probably going to change). You then bill the government for it yourself. The government, if it approves, will reimburse you up to about 80%. If you’re in France illegally, you get nothing. About 2/3 of the system is “public” and the better 1/3 is private. Malpractice insurance is paid by the government and there are special courts for those cases. Hard to win them, but then the government provides medical education for free based on the projected number of patients, not the ability of the candidates.

And, of course, their taxes are higher than ours and they’re burning cars in the streets because of it.

But go ahead. What’s your medical plan for everyone? What will it provide and not provide? What will it cost? I don’t think the handful of bishops who have spoken of it have provided one.

 

[Stephen_C]

What I keep reading is that the Government has no business in providing healthcare to it’s people (tax payers money). Or at least making it easer for its folk to obtain healthcare. That this should fall on charities and such. That stepping on toes thing. Well this has not worked so much in the past. With the price of healthcare in this day and time in the US. So is healthcare a right or a privilege? If you have the money all is good. No money for such things not so much. There are even folk who have equated this as good vs evil. The government providing/assisting with healthcare as being somehow evil. And some have done a wonderful job of those needing assistance with healthcare as somehow leaches/lowlife/losers/lazy/etc. Not worthy of such care.

 

[Metis1]

And papal encyclicals have, for a long time, endorsed what they call “social insurance.”

Absolutely. The idea of just leaving our healthcare to the whims of the marketplace is simply not compatible with Catholic social teachings.

Also, the Preamble to our Constitution here in the States says “promote the general welfare”, even though healthcare was not viewed as such back when put to pen. Nevertheless, it opened the door to the fed helping us in a variety of areas for the sake of the welfare of our people.

Before the ACA was passed, both the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University studies concluded that between 40-45,000 Americans died prematurely due to not having insurance, and one of my brothers-in-law was one of them, btw. We went to war after 9-11 with far fewer deaths than that, so why not declare “war” on the absence of us having universal coverage? [rhetorical]

We are the only industrialized country that does not have universal coverage, and yet we pay more per capita than any other country by far. Why? Because we are the only industrialized country that uses for-profit companies to manage our basic health-care delivery system. When we see all those advertisements on t.v., who ultimately pays for them? Also, an estimated 70-80% of all personal bankruptcies have healthcare costs as being a major contributor here in the States.

Anyhow, I’m “preaching to the choir”, and let me just say in conclusion that I truly enjoy your posts.

Take care.

 

[Metis1]

I also believe a Catholic does a great injustice to themselves by not being acquainted with Her teachings on social justice. It lends them to being ill informed and politically influenced, therefore inclined.

The Church has spoken on how best to accomplish health care for all based on the inherent rights of individuals, but not everyone is open to it.

Again, very well said.

Even though I wasn’t Catholic at the time, during my undergrad studies I took a class entitled “Catholic Moral Theology” taught by Jesuit professor and author Fr. John Hardon, and that class was quite an eye-opener for me, especially since I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Possibly one of these times those who promote “universal healthcare” will tell us what they mean by it in practical terms. Does it mean the government will pay for it if I go to the doctor for strep and incur a bill of $100? Does it mean I’ll pay anything if I can afford it?

A man I knew was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. The doctors gave him six months to live. They did every treatment imaginable. It cost Medicare and his supplemental insurer a million dollars, and he died six months later. Would that be covered for everyone? Or would the government say “he’s going to die in six months no matter what we do, so we’ll do nothing”?

If I injure my shoulder, I can usually see a doctor that day, but the next for sure. If he fears a rotator cuff tear, he’ll order it and I’ll get an MRI that day or two days later at the worst. In Canada and Britain, it would be weeks, in which case if I have a rotator cuff tear it’s quite possibly too late for repair. Which situation will “universal healthcare” bring? The U.S. has the highest number of MRIs per capita in the world, except for Japan, which is one of the reasons they’re so readily available. Do we need to cut down on their number?

I know a woman who has non small-cell lung cancer. She’s doing great on Keytruda and another medication, she says. And she probably is and will be for a long time. The cost is $40,000 per month. She has Medicare and supplemental insurance so she and her husband don’t pay all that much. Will “universal healthcare” pick that up?

It would be helpful if, before legislating another health program that “we have to pass in order to know what’s in it”, we actually knew what its proponents mean as a practical matter.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Also, an estimated 70-80% of all personal bankruptcies have healthcare costs as being a major contributor here in the States.

Is it a choice, then, between a number of personal bankruptcies or cars burning in the streets? I think the proponents of universal healthcare need to answer that for us before imposing the costs on us.

 

[Metis1]

We don’t need to re-invent the wheel, the ACA could be tweaked to make it better, or a system where health care is truly affordable, non restrictive to pre-existing conditions, and doctor-patient focused whereby removing third party determination inclined towards profit is a by-gone era.

And this was even admitted to when the ACA was passed since it was a compromised solution that didn’t have much along the lines of cost-containment. Much like Medicare and Social Security, it was felt from the get-go that it would have to be monitored and tweaked as time went on.

Even though Trump said that he and the Pubs would replace it and provide a better system, the reality is that after two full years they have not done a single thing to replace or improve it even though they had the majority in both houses and also the presidency. Ah, but they have full coverage for life, so what do they care.

 

[dvdjs]

Is it a choice, then, between a number of personal bankruptcies or cars burning in the streets?

Curious false binary.
What fraction of the countries with excellent health coverage for their people have cars burning in the streets?
How often are cars burning?

 

[Metis1]

Is it a choice, then, between a number of personal bankruptcies or cars burning in the streets? I think the proponents of universal healthcare need to answer that for us before imposing the costs on us.

France provides universal healthcare at less cost per capita than here in the States, so what’s happening in France isn’t because of that but has much more to do with spiraling energy costs.

 

[Metis1]

BTW, I tend to think that the Republican refusal to do anything with the healthcare situation not only caught up with them in this last off-year election but will likely become the #1 factor that could bring them down again in 2020 as polls indicate that this area is of high-priority to our citizens. Their “Do Nothing” Congress and Trump’s self-centered orientation is wearing increasingly thin. And now the Democratic House can pass bills to try and improve the system, and McConnell may refuse to even allow votes on this in the Senate, but that ploy is not likely to gain them any more popularity.

IOW, stay tuned.

 

[JonNC]

Then you are not one of the ones who think that we should have a Christian in the White House,

I don’t know why you’ve decided to talk about me instead of policy, but I absolutely believe that the success of our republic is dependent upon our continuing to follow the Judeo-Christian western values upon which it was founded.

nor should the laws of the country be written to uphold Christian values (aka abortion).

Defense of ACA is a defense of abortion in the form of abortifacients. It is a defense of forcing Catholic Christians and catholic Christians to pay for abortifacients and birth control techniques they disapprove of. It is a defense of forcing people to give up their plans and doctors, and forcing them to pay premiums that are in some cases over 100% high than before.
None of that is particularly Christian.

I’m just suggesting that those who do should also insure that we the people have our representatives practice Christianity via the laws of the country.

That’s precisely what I am doing.

 

[Ridgerunner]

France provides universal healthcare at less cost per capita than here in the States, so what’s happening in France isn’t because of that but has much more to do with spiraling energy costs.

I don’t think any of us know enough about costs in France to know whether their costs are greater or not. For example, they don’t count the cost of medical education or malpractice insurance or the cost of the special courts that try malpractice cases or the cost of the special schooling those judges have in medicine. In the U.S., all of those costs are built into the medical care. In France, the government pays them but doesn’t include it in the “cost of care”. But it isn’t as if simply comparing costs at the point of service is comparing apples to apples. It isn’t. In addition, doctors in the U.S. select the medication prescribed and tend to prescribe the “top of the line”. In France, the government buys all the meds and chooses what it wants to choose.

And as I said before, France provides no payment at all for illegals’ health care. We provide a lot.

And the French are not only protesting the new gas taxes. That’s just the straw that broke the camel’s back for many of them. Socialism costs money, and sooner or later they take it from everyone.

 

[Ridgerunner]

BTW, I tend to think that the Republican refusal to do anything with the healthcare situation not only caught up with them in this last off-year election but will likely become the #1 factor that could bring them down again in 2020

You’re probably right. Initially, the polls indicated the majority wanted rid of Obamacare. Now that doesn’t seem to be the case. But no matter what, the Repubs did nothing to improve either the healthcare system itself or insurance for it, with the sole exception of getting rid of the penalty.

Neither did the Dems, though, and I don’t look for them to do anything of consequence before 2020. There will, however, be a lot of talk.

One wonders whether Pelosi will again try full socialized medicine again now that she’s Speaker again.

 

[sallybutler]

I was suggesting that people who want the government to uphold certain Christian values should also be for it acting as a representative of Christ.

It sounds to me like the position you are espousing is that the government should uphold your values and force them on others, but not allow others to force their values on you, especially if you have to pay for them. Am I understanding that correctly?

 

[Theo520]

Unemployment has become extremely low and food stamp usage is becoming less necessary.

Manufacturing and mining jobs are up.

And teens are getting jobs at unprecedented rates, especially minority teens.

I wonder what the lifetime impact will be for minority teens who are now productively working rather than looking for ways to occupy their time. So much easier to transition into living wage jobs when you have actual work experience.

 

[JonNC]

I was suggesting that people who want the government to uphold certain Christian values should also be for it acting as a representative of Christ.

It sounds to me like the position you are espousing is that the government should uphold your values and force them on others, but not allow others to force their values on you, especially if you have to pay for them. Am I understanding that correctly?

Ive asked no one to share my values. If you want contraceptives, buy them. They’re cheap down at the pharmacy. Don’t make me or the Little Sisters of the Poor pay for them.
Abortion, however, involves an additional human being. I don’t care about the woman’s body. I care about the child’s body.
I