Life and Death: What last nights "decision" could mean, for my family

[Anna_Scott]

Dear Anna,

Sorry for the late response. Here’s the bottom line. The Catholic Church is vehemently opposed to the Affordable Care Act because it is an assault to religious freedom. Please see my earlier Cardinal Dolan quote, the fact that over 40 Catholic institutions are suing the Obama Administration, or simply search the term “Obamacare” on Catholic.org. We may disagree on the ACA’s effects on the economy, our seniors, or our freedoms, but the fact remains-- the ACA is blatantly anti-Catholic and contrary to Church teaching.

sowinskija,

That’s fine, but my posts didn’t deal with these issues.

Anna

 

[90Domer]

Although I am a bumpkin from WI, I can find at least 3-4 hospitals within an hour of where I live that, if necessary, could provide me with an MRI or surgery right away in the case of a life or death situation. With government sponsored free health-care, there won’t be enough resources to handle the demand. I know of a ton of people who go to the doctor when they sneeze. Or they have monthly appointments for their happy pills. Do you think that the demand won’t exceed the resources when it’s free? We’ve already shown that we’re a nation of gimme’s. Don’t get mad when your knee surgery gets pushed back so some guy in San Fran can change from James to Jamie.

Here’s another link about rationing in Canada. thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/20/canadian-healthcare.html
some highlights of Canadian healthcare:

• According to a new study by Canada’s Fraser Institute, surgical waitlists are costing the nation about $1 billion each year in lost productivity. The average Canadian can now expect to wait 9.5 weeks for treatment with a medical specialist, this number up from 9.3 weeks last year.
• Based on a 2011 Statistics Canada finding, the study makes the assumption that 11% of patients “were adversely affected by their wait for non-emergency surgery.”
• According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, healthcare spending annually totals about $200 billion, or $5,800 per person when spread across the country’s 35 million residents.

Look, I’d love to have free or way cheaper healthcare too. Having the government run this will not work out. Doctors are retiring in advance of Obamacare. They are already saying no new Medicare patients because the government doesn’t pay the bill. If the Canadian system costs $5,800 per person, in their country of 35 million, how much will Obamacare cost the US? Well, $5,800 x 311,000,000 people? Can we afford that?

Oh wait, I forgot. The country is doing fine economically. This won’t increase the debt at all.

More than just the economics of healthcare will change when this is implemented. There will be rules. You may not like them. The thing is, you will have no where else to go. If the government says you’re waiting 4 months for that referral to a specialist, that’s it. If your elderly mother is deemed past her productive life, they may say no altogether for that surgery that costs $200k. It’s too late now though. Obamacare will become law. Enjoy.

I, too, have noticed a shortage of docs in certain specialties. They don’t want to go into medicine because med school loans are high and reimbursements low. My parents’ doc won’t take new Medicare patients, and my OB/GYN retired in advance of this mandate. Two specialists I have gone to recently have both said there will soon be 2 types of medical care: boutique medicine where the patient pays up front and seeks some kind of reimbursement if he can (not accepting insurance) and 2) everyone else. The very best doctors will do the boutique route to same the hassle and cost of billing.

We have already noticed this when it comes to care for our special needs son. If you want the best and want to see the doc quickly, be prepared to shell out $$$. We sacrifice many things to allow for excellent medical care for him. He wouldn’t be where he is today if we didn’t go this route.

 

[90Domer]

TheRealJuliane & mary bobo,

So, basically, you don’t want Jala’s pre-existing condition to be covered. You don’t want money going toward the care needed to prevent suffering.

You don’t care if people suffer or die, because of the care-rationing that has been going on in the private sector for years.

The OP may actually be able to get Medicaid coverage through Obama’s Affordable Care Act. So, you must not want that either–because it might have some effect on you.

People may actually survive a catastrophic illness, now that the million dollar cap-a clear rationing of healthcare–will be removed. So, you must be against that too.

It sounds like, you want a certain standard of care for yourself, without regard for anyone else. Sounds very cold-hearted, especially coming from the mouths of Christians.

I hope your true intentions are not the way they sound in your posts. God help us all, if this is the true mindset of Christians in this country.

Anna

I think you are setting up a false dichotomy. There are many other solutions to implement care than Obamacare. The two are not exclusive.

 

[90Domer]

forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2011/06/13/even-obamacares-supporters-dont-support-the-rationing-board/

"So IPAB may not directly inform seniors that they can’t have access to a specific drug or a particular doctor. But by cutting the rates that drug companies or physicians are paid, the Board may artificially limit the supply of medications or doctors’ appointments.

For instance, a doctor may decide that lower reimbursement rates don’t offset the costs of seeing additional — or even existing — Medicare patients. As a result, seniors will face longer waits for appointments — or may be turned away altogether.

Similarly, arbitrarily cutting payments for prescription drugs in Medicare may result in fewer drugs being available. Seniors may be saddled with restrictive formularies that don’t offer access to the latest medications."

Per your last paragraph, it will also severely limit the ability of pharmaceutical companies to research new treatments for more difficult diseases like Alzheimer’s. If patent law and intellectual piracy were addressed, pharm companies wouldn’t have to try to recoup their costs so severely.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I think you are setting up a false dichotomy. There are many other solutions to implement care than Obamacare. The two are not exclusive.

90Domer,
I never said “Obamacare” is the only solution to healthcare.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Thing is, the abortion and contraception mandates are the only parts, so far as I am aware, that are contrary to Church teaching. I see no reason why a Catholic could not be in favor of the rest of the bill - or as I personally hope, that just those pieces get struck down and the rest goes into law.

What seems to be at issue here, however, is the requirement for everyone to have health insurance. That is a separate issue from the abortion and contraception discussions, and bringing them up here is rather a diversion. I see nothing inherently immoral in requiring everyone to have health insurance, so we are left with the other questions.

DarkLight,
I realize the abortion issue is a serious one, and the contraception issue is a serious one for Catholics/and other faiths. I believe in religious freedom. I also believe in separation of Church and State.

What I don’t understand is how to reconcile some of the Catholic posts on this thread with the call of the Pope for healthcare for all.

Pope, church leaders call for guaranteed health care for all people
Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone read the Pope’s message. So, adding what the Pope said and what the Cardinal said: healthcare is one of the inalienable rights of man, justice in healthcare should be a priority of Governments and international institutions, Governments should take care of all citizens, especially children, the elderly, the poor and immigrants, and Governments are obligated to adopt the proper legislative, administrative and financial measures to provide such care along with other basic conditions that promote good health, such as food security, water and housing.

Here, we see a call for Governments to take care of all citizens, with an obligation to adopt the proper legislative, administrative and financial measures to provide such care along with other basic conditions that promote good health, such as food security, water and housing. This is a tall order for any Government, especially with limited funds to implement what the Pope deems “inalienable rights of man.” Also, wouldn’t justice in healthcare mean the same benefits for all?

It seems that the Affordable Care Act, despite its many shortcomings, is at least an attempt to accomplish this. It may turn out to be a disaster or it may save lives by providing more access to heathcare–or even a combination of both. I don’t know what the future will hold.

Anna

 

[SuperLuigi]

Remember to cite your sources. I believe you are looking at the same Allan West article as me.

That was an entirely original post, but I’m sure you can find almost the exact wording elsewhere even time-dated before I posted on here.

 

[thewanderer]

DarkLight,
I realize the abortion issue is a serious one, and the contraception issue is a serious one for Catholics/and other faiths. I believe in religious freedom. I also believe in separation of Church and State.

What I don’t understand is how to reconcile some of the Catholic posts on this thread with the call of the Pope for healthcare for all.

Pope, church leaders call for guaranteed health care for all people
Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone read the Pope’s message. So, adding what the Pope said and what the Cardinal said: healthcare is one of the inalienable rights of man, justice in healthcare should be a priority of Governments and international institutions, Governments should take care of all citizens, especially children, the elderly, the poor and immigrants, and Governments are obligated to adopt the proper legislative, administrative and financial measures to provide such care along with other basic conditions that promote good health, such as food security, water and housing.

Here, we see a call for Governments to take care of all citizens, with an obligation to adopt the proper legislative, administrative and financial measures to provide such care along with other basic conditions that promote good health, such as food security, water and housing. This is a tall order for any Government, especially with limited funds to implement what the Pope deems “inalienable rights of man.” Also, wouldn’t justice in healthcare mean the same benefits for all?

It seems that the Affordable Care Act, despite its many shortcomings, is at least an attempt to accomplish this. It may turn out to be a disaster or it may save lives by providing more access to heathcare–or even a combination of both. I don’t know what the future will hold.

Anna

I think it is quite simple really, while they agree that healthcare should be available to all they believe very strongly that Obamacare is not the right way to go, that in the end it will just do more harm than good and that it would be better to scrap the whole thing and put in a something else that will work better rather than implementing Obamacare and then spending the next 50 years tinkering with it to try and make it workable only to find our country further in debt with imperitave freedoms lost somewhere along the way. I really don’t understand why it is surprising that people who accept the importance of ensuring access to healthcare for all would reject Obamacare. There are plenty of reasons to dislike it, enough to make one think it really should not be passed.

 

[90Domer]

I think you are setting up a false dichotomy. There are many other solutions to implement care than Obamacare. The two are not exclusive.

But you are implying that Real Julianne’s intention is to deny pre-existing health care when she never said that. I think plans can cover per-existing conditions without going the Obamacare route.

Just because she doesn’t like Obamacare does not mean she is immediately against per-existing conditions. There certainly are plenty of other plans that can include this coverage without the bloat of Obamacare.

 

[Anna_Scott]

But you are implying that Real Julianne’s intention is to deny pre-existing health care when she never said that. I think plans can cover per-existing conditions without going the Obamacare route.

Just because she doesn’t like Obamacare does not mean she is immediately against per-existing conditions. There certainly are plenty of other plans that can include this coverage without the bloat of Obamacare.

But she didn’t say preexisting conditions should be covered, just not the way it is accomplished in the Affordable Care Act.

She quoted Jala’s post, in which he described his suffering because of a preexisting condition, and then said, “Well, I can tell you for certain that it won’t help over time. The insurance companies are being forced to cover pre-existing conditions, which means they will lose money. If they lose money over time, they will go out of business. . . . .”

Isn’t that the same thing as saying insurance companies should not be forced to cover preexisting conditions?

What are the “plenty of other plans that can include this coverage”?

 

[Anna_Scott]

I think it is quite simple really, while they agree that healthcare should be available to all they believe very strongly that Obamacare is not the right way to go, that in the end it will just do more harm than good and that it would be better to scrap the whole thing and put in a something else that will work better rather than implementing Obamacare and then spending the next 50 years tinkering with it to try and make it workable only to find our country further in debt with imperitave freedoms lost somewhere along the way. I really don’t understand why it is surprising that people who accept the importance of ensuring access to healthcare for all would reject Obamacare. There are plenty of reasons to dislike it, enough to make one think it really should not be passed.

thewanderer,

Scrapping the ACA and starting over is one way to go. In the mean time, there will continue to be suffering and deaths due to million dollar caps, denied coverage of preexisting conditions, the lack of healthcare coverage, and unethical practices of private insurance companies. Abortions are not the only way to kill.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I think it is quite simple really, while they agree that healthcare should be available to all they believe very strongly that Obamacare is not the right way to go, that in the end it will just do more harm than good and that it would be better to scrap the whole thing and put in a something else that will work better rather than implementing Obamacare and then spending the next 50 years tinkering with it to try and make it workable only to find our country further in debt with imperitave freedoms lost somewhere along the way. I really don’t understand why it is surprising that people who accept the importance of ensuring access to healthcare for all would reject Obamacare. There are plenty of reasons to dislike it, enough to make one think it really should not be passed.

If changes are not made in what insurance companies deny and cover, along with other measures in the ACA; how does the Government fund justice in healthcare with coverage for all people–and ensure food and housing? This would call for Government involvement on a scale this country has never seen. Obama’s “big Government” would pale in comparison.

. . . .Pope, church leaders call for guaranteed health care for all people
Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone read the Pope’s message. So, adding what the Pope said and what the Cardinal said: healthcare is one of the inalienable rights of man, justice in healthcare should be a priority of Governments and international institutions, Governments should take care of all citizens, especially children, the elderly, the poor and immigrants, and Governments are obligated to adopt the proper legislative, administrative and financial measures to provide such care along with other basic conditions that promote good health, such as food security, water and housing… .

 

[thewanderer]

thewanderer,

Scrapping the ACA and starting over is one way to go. In the mean time, there will continue to be suffering and deaths due to million dollar caps, denied coverage of preexisting conditions, the lack of healthcare coverage, and unethical practices of private insurance companies. Abortions are not the only way to kill.

And setting up a bad system of healthcare can also kill. we are never going to live in a perfect world, so we strive to create the best world we can. I, and others, tend to think that implementing Obamacare now will cause so much damage down the road that it would be much better to scrap it and demand that our govt actually produce a viable health care reform, one, I might add, which does not take away our freedoms. And in case you’re wondering, no I am not some wealthy buisness person wih excellent healthcare coverage. I have no healthcare coverage currently and pretty much no savings. I am well aware of the fact that if something goes wrong I’m dead, literally. But even knowing that I would no prefer for the government to implement Obamacare. I know that this can seem like a great thing, but ultimately it is he wrong course of action. I understand that we will have to agree o disagree on this but I am just trying to help you understand that not everyone against Obamacare is a greedy ________ who doesn’t care about he welfare of others. Plenty of us care very much about tue welfare of others, but just don’t see Obamacare as the right solution.

 

[thewanderer]

If changes are not made in what insurance companies deny and cover, along with other measures in the ACA; how does the Government fund justice in healthcare with coverage for all people–and ensure food and housing? This would call for Government involvement on a scale this country has never seen. Obama’s “big Government” would pale in comparison.

Why not have the govt fix Medicare so that it is actually viable and then ensure that those who cannot get a different plan because of pre-existing conditions are allowed to get a plan with the govt. Have the amount they pay for it depend upon their income. There is no need to force insurance companies out of business.

 

[sowinskija]

DarkLight,
I realize the abortion issue is a serious one, and the contraception issue is a serious one for Catholics/and other faiths. I believe in religious freedom. I also believe in separation of Church and State.

What I don’t understand is how to reconcile some of the Catholic posts on this thread with the call of the Pope for healthcare for all.

Pope, church leaders call for guaranteed health care for all people
Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone read the Pope’s message. So, adding what the Pope said and what the Cardinal said: healthcare is one of the inalienable rights of man, justice in healthcare should be a priority of Governments and international institutions, Governments should take care of all citizens, especially children, the elderly, the poor and immigrants, and Governments are obligated to adopt the proper legislative, administrative and financial measures to provide such care along with other basic conditions that promote good health, such as food security, water and housing.

Here, we see a call for Governments to take care of all citizens, with an obligation to adopt the proper legislative, administrative and financial measures to provide such care along with other basic conditions that promote good health, such as food security, water and housing. This is a tall order for any Government, especially with limited funds to implement what the Pope deems “inalienable rights of man.” Also, wouldn’t justice in healthcare mean the same benefits for all?

Anna

You are right. We should consider separation of church and state. The ACA tears this principle apart! Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York said that “never before has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to …buy a product that violates their conscience. This shouldn’t happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights.” This means that the Affordable Care Act is a strong violation of the separation of Church and state. The government is at fault for interfering with the integrity of the Church. It works both ways.

When you discuss the right to healthcare, you are also correct. “Pope Benedict XVI and other church leaders said it was the moral responsibility of nations to guarantee access to health care for all of their citizens” (CNS News) Everybody has a right to healthcare, just as everybody has the right to practice their religion freely. Just because something is a right, it doesn’t mean the government has to provide it. Does the government need to build churches or make Bibles to provide to our right of religious liberty? No.

It is not the government’s responsibility to pay for healthcare. Bad things happen when the government does this.

The A.C.A places America on a path towards socialized medicine. Forbes Magazine author Richard M. Salsman agrees.“[The Affordable Care Act] ensures that America will move still farther and faster down the path to full, socialized medicine…” Michael Tanner, director of health and welfare studies at the Cato institute, explains the harms of socialized medicine:

"The European welfare states are slashing benefits in the face of rising health care costs….Britain, France and Germany are all being forced to limit access to care.”

By following the path taken by Europe, we will bankrupt our already failing system, and allow the government far too much power. By trying to help the people, we are actually hurting them, limiting their right to healthcare

So yes, everybody has a right to healthcare and their should be a separation of church and state, and that is why the ACA is bad.

This is not, however, a policy forum. Neither of us should be discussing the economy. This really comes down to what the Catholic Church believes, and the ACA is clearly contrary to that. Because of this, this debate needs to end.

God Bless

 

[DarkLight]

You are right. We should consider separation of church and state. The ACA tears this principle apart! Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York said that “never before has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to …buy a product that violates their conscience. This shouldn’t happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights.” This means that the Affordable Care Act is a strong violation of the separation of Church and state. The government is at fault for interfering with the integrity of the Church. It works both ways.

When you discuss the right to healthcare, you are also correct. “Pope Benedict XVI and other church leaders said it was the moral responsibility of nations to guarantee access to health care for all of their citizens” (CNS News) Everybody has a right to healthcare, just as everybody has the right to practice their religion freely. Just because something is a right, it doesn’t mean the government has to provide it. Does the government need to build churches or make Bibles to provide to our right of religious liberty? No.

It is not the government’s responsibility to pay for healthcare. Bad things happen when the government does this.

The A.C.A places America on a path towards socialized medicine. Forbes Magazine author Richard M. Salsman agrees.“[The Affordable Care Act] ensures that America will move still farther and faster down the path to full, socialized medicine…” Michael Tanner, director of health and welfare studies at the Cato institute, explains the harms of socialized medicine:

"The European welfare states are slashing benefits in the face of rising health care costs….Britain, France and Germany are all being forced to limit access to care.”

By following the path taken by Europe, we will bankrupt our already failing system, and allow the government far too much power. By trying to help the people, we are actually hurting them, limiting their right to healthcare

So yes, everybody has a right to healthcare and their should be a separation of church and state, and that is why the ACA is bad.

This is not, however, a policy forum. Neither of us should be discussing the economy. This really comes down to what the Catholic Church believes, and the ACA is clearly contrary to that. Because of this, this debate needs to end.

God Bless

But the point several of us have been making is that many of us do support the act as a whole, while believing the parts about abortion and contraception need to be removed. I just see these as two different issues that happen to be getting conflated.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Why not have the govt fix Medicare so that it is actually viable and then ensure that those who cannot get a different plan because of pre-existing conditions are allowed to get a plan with the govt. Have the amount they pay for it depend upon their income. There is no need to force insurance companies out of business.

thewanderer,

That’s a good plan, but still leaves us with a moral dilemma: How do we stop the private insurance company death sentence that is a direct result of lifetime caps on insurance coverage, failure to cover preexisting conditions, and dropping insurance coverage when someone develops a serious illness?

Allowing private insurance companies to continue these practices contradicts the Catholic Church’s call for “justice” in healthcare and coverage for all people as an “inalienable right.”

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . .When you discuss the right to healthcare, you are also correct. “Pope Benedict XVI and other church leaders said it was the moral responsibility of nations to guarantee access to health care for all of their citizens” (CNS News) Everybody has a right to healthcare, just as everybody has the right to practice their religion freely. Just because something is a right, it doesn’t mean the government has to provide it.

It is not the government’s responsibility to pay for healthcare. Bad things happen when the government does this.

. . . . .So yes, everybody has a right to healthcare . . . .

sowinskija,

The Catholic Church is not saying, “It is not the government’s responsibility to pay for healthcare.”

The Catholic Church is saying, Governments are obligated to adopt the proper legislative, administrative and financial measures to provide such care along with other basic conditions that promote good health, such as food security, water and housing. Source: Pope, church leaders call for guaranteed health care for all people

This is not, however, a policy forum. Neither of us should be discussing the economy. This really comes down to what the Catholic Church believes, and the ACA is clearly contrary to that. Because of this, this debate needs to end. . . .

Look back at my posts #116 & #117, in which I said:

How the ACA affects the economy and religious freedom are important, but separate issues from the focus of my posts. Though, they are a useful diversion to avoid answering my questions and addressing the issues I’ve raised, or the OP’s dilemma–a dilemma that may be replaced with healthcare for the OP under the ACA.

Catholics brought the economy and religious freedom into the discussion. Then, when I finally gave in to these particular derailments, you say the “debate needs to end.”

No one has answered this question:

If changes are not made in what insurance companies deny and cover, along with other measures in the ACA; how does the Government fund justice in healthcare with coverage for all people–and ensure food and housing? This would call for Government involvement on a scale this country has never seen. Obama’s “big Government” would pale in comparison.

Or addressed this:

. . . .Pope, church leaders call for guaranteed health care for all people. . . .

Here, we see a call for Governments to take care of all citizens, with an obligation to adopt the proper legislative, administrative and financial measures to provide such care along with other basic conditions that promote good health, such as food security, water and housing. This is a tall order for any Government, especially with limited funds to implement what the Pope deems “inalienable rights of man.” Also, wouldn’t justice in healthcare mean the same benefits for all?. . . .

 

[Anna_Scott]

You are right. We should consider separation of church and state. The ACA tears this principle apart! Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York said that “never before has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to …buy a product that violates their conscience. This shouldn’t happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights.” This means that the Affordable Care Act is a strong violation of the separation of Church and state. The government is at fault for interfering with the integrity of the Church. It works both ways. . . .

sowinskija,

The religious freedom issue really does deserve a thread dedicated to that topic. If you want to start a new thread, I’d be glad to hear what you have to say. I only ask that you quote the ACA to support the claims of violation of religious freedom. That way, we can deal with the facts.

I think this thread has been hopelessly derailed, and may clarifications I have requested still remain unanswered.

Peace and blessings,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

But the point several of us have been making is that many of us do support the act as a whole, while believing the parts about abortion and contraception need to be removed. I just see these as two different issues that happen to be getting conflated.

DarkLight,

I agree, and I do support religious freedom. Even though I am not a Catholic in Communion with Rome; I don’t believe Catholics should be forced to support that which is against the Catholic conscience.

Peace,
Anna