Pope Francis: healthcare is a 'universal right,' not a 'consumer good' [CWN]

  • Thread starter Thread starter CWN_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Expatreprocedit said:
I cannot fathom the mindset that doesn’t think tens of thousands of deaths from inadequate healthcare doe not justify whatever means are necessary to correct that situation, including socialized health acre.
Click to expand...
Here’s one means that would correct the situation: “Sign up for healthcare or be shot.”

Is that one of those "whatever means that are necessary to correct the situation?
 
Suudy said:
Not if one violates the principle of subsidiarity, which I think universal healthcare clearly does.
Click to expand...
That isn’t clear to me at all. I guess a lot of bishops in European or Canadian countries would have spoken out against it if that we’re true, but I can’t find anything. Can you?
 
Suudy said:
Here’s one means that would correct the situation: “Sign up for healthcare or be shot.”

Is that one of those "whatever means that are necessary to correct the situation?
Click to expand...
I should know that using phrases such as “whatever is necessary” opens myself up for extreme hypothetical scenarios, so that was my mistake.

What I should have said is that I cannot fathom the mindset that doesn’t think that “socialized healthcare” is not justified as a means to prevent the deaths of ten thousands of uninsured.
 
Tablefor9 said:
Our health care system isn’t the best in the world, and I never said it was. In fact, I’m a proponent of change here, especially in my field, which is maternal-child health. But, it’s better than many.

Medical tourism FROM the US is usually among affluent people who can already afford to A. Travel internationally and B. Pay out of pocket for healthcare. The leading specialties are cosmetic procedures and restorative or cosmetic dentistry. Followed by cardiac procedures and orthopedics where people can save 50%ish. Cancer rounds out the top 5, but only for “last ditch” or experimental procedures. So basically, vanity procedures…taking advantage of low costs of healthcare/low nursing and medical wages/unregulated treatments.

Medical tourism to the US also includes cosmetics, but is heavy on the general surgery, orthopedic, neuro, and cardiovascular; anecdotally it’s because of quality and to decrease wait time. We also have people coming from the Middle East to have their babies all the time.
Click to expand...
We also have medical tourism from Canada. [There is a line of hospitals right along the US-Canadian border.]

There are also hospitals and medical professionals who publish cash pay prices that amount to about an 80% reduction from the “list” prices that the insurance companies pay.

You can look them up.
 
 
Monte_RCMS said:
We also have medical tourism from Canada. [There is a line of hospitals right along the US-Canadian border.]

There are also hospitals and medical professionals who publish cash pay prices that amount to about an 80% reduction from the “list” prices that the insurance companies pay.

You can look them up.
Click to expand...
Canadians make up a large part of ours, too. They are our winter residents and have medical care here that they are on long waiting lists for in Canada. Many of these residents would have had cancers beyond the stages of successful treatment if they had to wait any longer 😦 This is what isn’t talked about when people are pushing single payer healthcare.
 
Tablefor9 said:
Canadians make up a large part of ours, too. They are our winter residents and have medical care here that they are on long waiting lists for in Canada. Many of these residents would have had cancers beyond the stages of successful treatment if they had to wait any longer 😦 This is what isn’t talked about when people are pushing single payer healthcare.
Click to expand...
And there are many treatments & medicines that insurance companies don’t cover.

“Rationing” happens for all sorts of reasons. There aren’t enough doctors or hospitals, insurance companies don’t cover things, state and federal regulations prevent certain treatments or require others, people and organizations are afraid of being sued, people have religious beliefs that preclude certain treatments (I’m actually thinking Christian Science and JW), etc.

While I’m not sure single payer would solve the issue in the US, I suspect it would help if it were an option. I also think having more doctors and medical personnel world wide would do a lot for many communities and would bring down costs in others.
 
Expatreprocedit said:
What I should have said is that I cannot fathom the mindset that doesn’t think that “socialized healthcare” is not justified as a means to prevent the deaths of ten thousands of uninsured.
Click to expand...
Like I mentioned in another post, it depends on what you mean by “socialized healthcare.” Do you mean universal healthcare?
 
healthcare can not be a universal right.

Rights are free. They don’t cost anyone money or labor.

If your “right” requires someone to actively do something for you then what your are doing is enslaving them. If healthcare is a right then what happens if there aren’t enough doctors? You have to force some people to go to medical school and become doctors.

If consumers don’t want to pay then you would have to force doctors to work for free (enslavement again)
 
Crossbones said:
That isn’t clear to me at all. I guess a lot of bishops in European or Canadian countries would have spoken out against it if that we’re true, but I can’t find anything. Can you?
Click to expand...
Do they have to be European or Canadian to have an valid opinion on the matter?

Archbishop Chaput in this interview:
The U.S. bishops have spoken in favor of a universal right to health care.
The bishops really do believe it. Health is a basic human right; we have a right to be healthy. There’s no declaration on the part of the Church that that has to be accomplished through government intervention.
There are many ways of approaching health care, and I think it’s very important for Catholics to understand the fact that the Church, seeing health care as a basic human right, does not mean [to say] there’s a particular method of obtaining that [right that’s] better than another.
Which agrees with your point, but contrary to gnjsdad that seems to say that universal healthcare is a moral imperative.

But then there is Archbishop Naumann and Bishop Finn (here):
This notion that health care ought to be determined at the lowest level rather than at the higher strata of society, has been promoted by the Church as “subsidiarity.” Subsidiarity is that principle by which we respect the inherent dignity and freedom of the individual by never doing for others what they can do for themselves and thus enabling individuals to have the most possible discretion in the affairs of their lives. (See: Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, ## 185ff.; Catechism of the Catholic Church, # 1883) The writings of recent Popes have warned that the neglect of subsidiarity can lead to an excessive centralization of human services, which in turn leads to excessive costs, and loss of personal responsibility and quality of care.
Read the entire letter. It’s pretty convincing that universal healthcare is contrary to subsidiarity.

And finally Papa Benedict (here):
The state which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person – every person – needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a state which regulates and controls everything, but a state which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need.
I don’t see how universal healthcare can accomplish both ends: a right to healthcare and the principle of subsidiarity. The mere term “universal” undermines subsidiarity.
 
Some Catholic hospitals have been shut down because costs got too high to sustain.
 
JohnAlexander said:
healthcare can not be a universal right.

Rights are free. They don’t cost anyone money or labor.

If your “right” requires someone to actively do something for you then what your are doing is enslaving them. If healthcare is a right then what happens if there aren’t enough doctors? You have to force some people to go to medical school and become doctors.

If consumers don’t want to pay then you would have to force doctors to work for free (enslavement again)
Click to expand...
Based on your theory, everyone should be on their own from the second they are born. Isn’t a baby enslaving their parents by forcing them to provide food and a blanket?
 
sallybutler said:
Based on your theory, everyone should be on their own from the second they are born. Isn’t a baby enslaving their parents by forcing them to provide food and a blanket?
Click to expand...
I don’t think this analogy is apt. Parents made a choice to bring children into the world, and with it an acceptance of the demands to care for and provide for the child. This is a different scenario than healthcare for unrelated individuals.

Now, I agree there is a duty to provide for those in need. But there must be a balance between the right to the fruit of one’s own labor and the right to healthcare. And I think since most have access to healthcare (and citing numbers about uninsured is not the same thing), the government can better address the issue through targeted programs, rather than a blanket takeover of the entire system.
 
Tablefor9 said:
Canadians make up a large part of ours, too. They are our winter residents and have medical care here that they are on long waiting lists for in Canada. Many of these residents would have had cancers beyond the stages of successful treatment if they had to wait any longer 😦 This is what isn’t talked about when people are pushing single payer healthcare.
Click to expand...
I live in Canada, my wife is a physician “in the system”, and we have never heard of anyone waiting more than briefly for cancer treatments. Anyone I’ve known with cancer has been diagnosed, staged, and treated appropriately quickly. And that goes for my wife’s patients. There are long waiting lists for some elective surgeries, but not for cancer. Ditto for heart disease; where I live the average time from an MI to an arterial stent installation is usually within 24 hours of admission to a primary or secondary centre and includes transfer time to a tertiary centre. I won’t say delays never occur, but they are very rare if at all and usually of short duration. Cancer mortality rates in Canada compare with the average of industrialized nations:
So universal insurance is as bad as no insurance, right? Not so fast. For one thing, survival rates in Canada, Japan, Australia and Cuba were all comparable to or higher than U.S. survival rates on all types of cancer that the Lancet study examined, except for prostate cancer. Those countries all have some form of government-provided health care coverage. Prostate cancer often doesn’t require treatment, so the aggressive screening common in the U.S. turns up both early cases and cases that would never need intervention. This leads to an inflated survival rate in the U.S., where asymptomatic patients are more likely to be diagnosed.
Click to expand...
(factcheck.org)
 
Tablefor9 said:
This is the kind of talk that clouds the discussion without addressing the real issues. Truly, no one in this country need “bleed to death or die of a heart attack unnecessarily”. Because of a law called the EMTALA act, ANYONE who presents to a hospital with an emergency condition or in active labor is legally entitled to stabilizing, lifesaving care without regard to ability to pay. That includes emergency heart procedures, surgeries to stop bleeding, the births of babies, etc.

The REAL problem in this country is that there are people who have insurance, but can’t afford the copays, the deductibles, or the out of pocket portions, which may add up to $10k+ per family per annum in many chronic illness cases. The ACA (Obamacare) has done NOTHING to improve this, in fact, has made it worse; people who couldn’t afford insurance before are either deeper in the hole with it and can’t afford to use it, or still don’t have it and will also be fined (taxed) for being poor. 😦

As for socialized medicine, if it’s so wonderful, why do we in healthcare see medical tourists come here for cancer (and other) treatment they can’t get, or can’t get in time, at home?

My thoughts on healthcare have evolved a LOT in the 20 years since I became a nurse. Perhaps single payer is an answer, perhaps not, but rest assured, it’s no panacea without its own very major problems.
Click to expand...
The problem is, its better to get a person in for annual physicals and such to catch medical problems before they have to be brought into the ER, which is very expensive.

Well, I’m retired and get my health insurance through ACA, because I’m not 65 yet.

My annual out of pocket is only $1500, and my co-pays are $22 for doctors visits, by my primary care physician, never charges me.

Obama care works in the states that didn’t oppose it and expanded medicaid.

That all being said, we still have a “for profit,” healthcare system and it will eventually break everyone, whether you get insurance through your employer or through the ACA exchanges.

Hospitals, health insurance companies, pharmaceuticals and medical groups, are managed by people with MBA’s and their goal is to make lots of money for themselves and their institutions.

Even my own doctor who belongs to a medical group says that he and his peers want a single payer universal system. In fact, when Obamacare was passed, I asked him about it and he said that he and his peers would rather have seen medicare expanded down to age 50, then eventually to the day of birth.

Having to hire a team of insurance experts is expensive for them, and companies would rather get their HR people out of the insurance shopping business.

Jim
 
Suudy;
Using your logic, we should have a universal food, clothing, and shelter. But we don’t. It’s a matter of prudential judgement.
Click to expand...
Except that we do pay for food, clothing and shelter for those who can’t afford it. Are these things basic rights or is it socialism which we should abandon ?
Now, I think that socializing healthcare is the least efficient and most intrusive means of solving problems for the few that need it.
Click to expand...
Really ?

Why is the US Healthcare System ranked lower than countries that have single payer universal healthcare ?

OH sure, we excel in specialized medicine and cosmetic surgery, but the average person who isn’t working for a big corporation, getting healthcare without losing their house in the process was in shambles and Obamacare was the first step in fixing this.

I was in the ER several times with my mother and father, before Romneycare came into being. The place was packed with people with no health insurance, having their kids checked for ear infections, flu and just trying to get immunization shots so they could go to school.

After Romneycare, which eventually became Obamacare, the ER visits were totally different. We had some wait time, but nothing like before.
Everyone needs security, and almost none of the populace has the individual means to ensure their security. Everyone needs healthcare, but only a few lack the means to provide for their own healthcare.
Click to expand...
Before Obamacare, if you were laid off from your job, you lost your health insurance or you paid $1500 per month. People had to cash in their 401k’s to pay for their health insurance or go without. If the got sick with cancer or some other ailment, they lost their life savings and even their homes, in order to get treatment because they didn’t qualify for medicaid.

I saw it and I saw the people who were harmed greatly because they had no health insurance.

A single payer universal health care system, like Bernie Sanders was advocating, would eliminate the need for corporations to buy health insurance for their employees. The employees would no longer have to pay premiums, but would pay a healthcare tax, which would in fact be lower for most than their premiums are.

An employee could transfer to a better paying job or start a business without worrying about having to buy health insurance which they can’t afford when not employed.
.
Our healthcare system was broken, especially in states where insurance companies could drop you if you got sick, or refuse to insure your child who was born with a health issue.

ACA isn’t perfect, but let me ask, is it better for people to go without health insurance in the USA today ?

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
The problem is, its better to get a person in for annual physicals and such to catch medical problems before they have to be brought into the ER, which is very expensive.

Well, I’m retired and get my health insurance through ACA, because I’m not 65 yet.

My annual out of pocket is only $1500, and my co-pays are $22 for doctors visits, by my primary care physician, never charges me.

Obama care works in the states that didn’t oppose it and expanded medicaid.

That all being said, we still have a “for profit,” healthcare system and it will eventually break everyone, whether you get insurance through your employer or through the ACA exchanges.

Hospitals, health insurance companies, pharmaceuticals and medical groups, are managed by people with MBA’s and their goal is to make lots of money for themselves and their institutions.

Even my own doctor who belongs to a medical group says that he and his peers want a single payer universal system. In fact, when Obamacare was passed, I asked him about it and he said that he and his peers would rather have seen medicare expanded down to age 50, then eventually to the day of birth.

Having to hire a team of insurance experts is expensive for them, and companies would rather get their HR people out of the insurance shopping business.

Jim
Click to expand...
I think there are a couple of misunderstandings here.

First, there is no difference between the premiums charged by not-for-profit insurers (Mutual of Omaha/United of Omaha being the biggest) and those charged by for-profit insurers. The insurers are not getting fat on premiums, though they do have to pay scrupulous attention to the bottom line so they don’t lose money.

The government doesn’t care whether it loses money or not. If one wants anything resembling efficiency, government isn’t the best resort.

Medicare is subsidized and discounted as well. So your doctor is really saying all medical treatment should be discounted (discounted from what?) and subsidized in full by the government. The Medicare liabilities are already in the trillions and unpayable, so why is this a remedy?

And frankly, I’m sure your doctor’s billing team spends just as much time messing with Medicare and Medicaid (if they take it at all) as they do with the private insurers. Know why? Because Medicare and Medicaid are both administered by private insurance companies, not the government. Why is that? Because the insurers do it efficiently and competently, while the government can’t. The only medical system the government actually administers is VA, and that’s nothing to be proud of.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Suudy;

Except that we do pay for food, clothing and shelter for those who can’t afford it. Are these things basic rights or is it socialism which we should abandon ?

Really ?

Why is the US Healthcare System ranked lower than countries that have single payer universal healthcare ?

OH sure, we excel in specialized medicine and cosmetic surgery, but the average person who isn’t working for a big corporation, getting healthcare without losing their house in the process was in shambles and Obamacare was the first step in fixing this.

I was in the ER several times with my mother and father, before Romneycare came into being. The place was packed with people with no health insurance, having their kids checked for ear infections, flu and just trying to get immunization shots so they could go to school.

After Romneycare, which eventually became Obamacare, the ER visits were totally different. We had some wait time, but nothing like before.

Before Obamacare, if you were laid off from your job, you lost your health insurance or you paid $1500 per month. People had to cash in their 401k’s to pay for their health insurance or go without. If the got sick with cancer or some other ailment, they lost their life savings and even their homes, in order to get treatment because they didn’t qualify for medicaid.

I saw it and I saw the people who were harmed greatly because they had no health insurance.

A single payer universal health care system, like Bernie Sanders was advocating, would eliminate the need for corporations to buy health insurance for their employees. The employees would no longer have to pay premiums, but would pay a healthcare tax, which would in fact be lower for most than their premiums are.

An employee could transfer to a better paying job or start a business without worrying about having to buy health insurance which they can’t afford when not employed.
.
Our healthcare system was broken, especially in states where insurance companies could drop you if you got sick, or refuse to insure your child who was born with a health issue.

ACA isn’t perfect, but let me ask, is it better for people to go without health insurance in the USA today ?

Jim
Click to expand...
Before Obamacare, the great majority of people were satisfied with their health insurance. Now, they’re not. The number of uninsured has not significantly decreased since Obamacare, and costs have gone up massively, largely due to mandated coverages that few would voluntarily purchase, like 100% coverage for abortifacient drugs or drug rehab coverage.

There is no reason to believe government healthcare would be cheaper for most. Despite being discounted and heavily subsidized, Medicare is so far in the red that future generations will absolutely be unable to pay for it. And that’s soon, not 100 years from now.

if Medicare is discounted, who pays the discounts? Why, the people with private insurance or who are self-pay.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
That all being said, we still have a “for profit,” healthcare system and it will eventually break everyone, whether you get insurance through your employer or through the ACA exchanges.
Click to expand...
It will only “break everyone” if the government keeps getting in the way. The failures of the for-profit system are its inability to cope with constantly shifting and burdensome requirements. The problem isn’t the profit. The problem is the government requirements.
JimR-OCDS said:
Hospitals, health insurance companies, pharmaceuticals and medical groups, are managed by people with MBA’s and their goal is to make lots of money for themselves and their institutions.
Click to expand...
So are clothing manufacturers, home builders, and food distribution companies. So why has the real cost of clothes, homes, and food been dropping in price? Why do consumer electronics cost a fraction of what they did 20 or 30 years ago, for significantly more functionality?

Yet for some reason the cost of medical care hasn’t done so. What’s the difference? Massive government involvement and tinkering. I don’t see how single payer would do anything to control those costs. All it would do is shift the burden of who pays.
JimR-OCDS said:
Even my own doctor who belongs to a medical group says that he and his peers want a single payer universal system. In fact, when Obamacare was passed, I asked him about it and he said that he and his peers would rather have seen medicare expanded down to age 50, then eventually to the day of birth.
Click to expand...
Even my wife, a nurse, and the doctors at her practice when Obamacare was passed didn’t want a single payer system. Their #1 objection was the loss of flexibility and increased overhead to comply with government requirements. So, my doctor’s office cancels your doctor’s office.
JimR-OCDS said:
Having to hire a team of insurance experts is expensive for them, and companies would rather get their HR people out of the insurance shopping business.
Click to expand...
Which is why companies give huge discounts for cash customers. And which is something the government has made worse by limiting the ability to negotiate with providers. States severely limiting HSAs or prohibiting high deductible plans, greatly limit options to individuals to pay for service.

I just chatted with my wife over lunch and asked about the insurance side of things. She told me that they already have the infrastructure in place because they want to accept Medicare patients, so the cost is incremental to handle private insurers. Small clinics (such as my wife’s which only has 8 doctors), rely upon software systems to help navigate the overhead. The software provider manages Medicare, and it is a small upcharge to handle private insurers. And they have so few cash-only customers, the only way to get a discount is to pay up front so they can avoid the payment/billing process.

Finally, my company is self-insured. They vastly prefer this. What they hate is the state requirement that even if self-insured, they must contract with a third-party administrator. My sister-in-law is in HR at a larger, self-insured company, and her view is completely the opposite of what you state above. They want, to have insurance experts. It is far cheaper to hire and manage costs internally, rather than re-negotiate every single year with a third-party administrator over their costs. It’s easier to predict and easier to manage costs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top