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

[JimG]

It’s not alright. I don’t think Medicare is efficient. The fact that it has been around for 50 years and that it is a political third rail is the only reason it won’t be fixed. The very things that Centisimus Annus warns about regarding the welfare state are coming to pass in Medicare. And they would be exacerbated by increasing the sphere of federal control over healthcare.

I was perfectly happy with my private health insurance and its small copays, and had no particular desire to go on Medicare. But when I turned 65 there was no option—the old plan by its own policy became secondary—a Medicare supplement.

The medical profession does not seem happy with Medicare except to the extent that it provides a guaranteed patient stream. Medical insurance serves the purpose of guaranteeing income for docs as much as it does providing medical care for patients. But it comes with so much governmental bureaucracy, including EHR and the new ICD 10, that many docs are beginning to hate it.

That’s one reason for the recent trend of primary care docs to form “direct patient care” practices, wheren they accept NO insurance. No Medicare, not Blue Cross, not Aetna, nothing. They work for the patient, and are paid by the patient, and have no insurance coders and billers. Overhead is much lower, and patients seem to like the fact that they provide better service at a minimal monthly fee. I’ve even heard of surgical practices doing the same thing. And yes, they do take patients who cannot pay, but many poor patients find their charges less than ACA premiums, even when subsidized.

 

[Inisfallen]

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?

Good question. Another good question is why do we see Americans going to India or Thailand for medical procedures they can’t afford here?

 

[Suudy]

That’s one reason for the recent trend of primary care docs to form “direct patient care” practices, wheren they accept NO insurance. No Medicare, not Blue Cross, not Aetna, nothing. They work for the patient, and are paid by the patient, and have no insurance coders and billers. Overhead is much lower, and patients seem to like the fact that they provide better service at a minimal monthly fee. I’ve even heard of surgical practices doing the same thing. And yes, they do take patients who cannot pay, but many poor patients find their charges less than ACA premiums, even when subsidized.

I’d prefer completely severing the tie between doctors and insurance. The customers get an estimate of costs, they are then billed directly for care, and the patient submits the claim directly to the insurance company. It decreases overhead on the doctor’s office, increases visibility into actual costs, and gives patients choice. The current system hides costs from patients. But such a system is practically impossible with the restrictions on HSAs and high deductible plans.

 

[Suudy]

Under the American system, with its emphasis on individual rights vs the government (with no recognition of rights and duties owed by government to the Church), there is no way to reconcile universal healthcare with subsidiarity. There is no hope of a true implementation of the common good or of subsidiarity in America today

On this I will agree. There is hyper-individualism, and the sense of community has deteriorated significantly. The US has become a “me, me, me” society. And again, I put the blame squarely on the government. The government has become a daddy to everyone, and when treated like children, people will act like children. And children are especially guilty of “me, me, me” behavior.

Treat people like adults, and they will act like adults.

my comment on the Kingship of Christ. That is a doctrine that is barely mentioned anymore. It applies not only to individuals but to society. Society has a moral obligation to recognize God and the primacy of His Church. Barring that, any system falls short of the ideal.

I agree. Without Christ, no system will meet the ideal. And with the government intentionally driving God out, it will only get worse.

 

[August_Carlson]

I may be opening a can of worms here, but, am I right on this? Our rights come from our Creator, not from the State. Where in scripture do we find the notion that health care is a right? Where in scripture do we see that the State must be responsible, must be benevolent? My reading of the Gospel is that the State has never been a trustworthy source for benevolence. If anything, the State – at least in the Bible – is inevitably a failure and is historically, something to be feared.Unless it is allied to the will of God (good luck with that!), the State is incapable of delivering the rights we receive from God. If we begin to believe that the State will supply us our needs and guarantee our rights, we are living in a fools paradise. We have to learn to live with it in humble obedience, Yes, but we must never accord it with the responsibility of guaranteeing our well-being. Indeed, as a people of God, we should have every reason to hold the State at a distance. “Put not your trust in princes, in mortal man in whom there is no salvation.” (Psalm 146). If Pope Francis claims that healthcare is a universal right (and not a consumer good), where does this notion come from? Is this something we find in the teachings of the Early Church Fathers? Augustine? Aquinas? Where does this “tradition” come from?

 

[Inisfallen]

So true! In the US, they never ask to see your insurance coverage before treating you. You can always figure out the payment later. Two totally different things.

They never ask? That’s flat-out not true. You try making an appointment with a doctor without being asked what insurance you have. Or getting a procedure at a hospital.

It’s true that a hospital emergency room cannot turn you away if you need emergency care (although they certainly can turn you away for non-emergency care), but even then, they’re going to ask about your insurance.

 

[Inisfallen]

Actually, in real life, healthcare and medical insurance are two totally different things.

One is getting to see a medical professional.

The other is figuring out payment.

Two totally different things.

Important not to get them mixed.

Absolutely true. There are a number of models for “national health care,” whatever that means to you.

In the Canadian model, health *insurance *is socialized, but the medical profession is not. They’re just billing the provincial government, rather than an insurance company.

In the British model, the health care providers are actually government employees (there are private providers, too, but the National Health Service is the main provider of health care in Great Britain).

 

[gnjsdad]

Does this mean you support, in principle, having Catholicism as the State religion?

Yes. That is the ideal.

 

[Inisfallen]

Yes. That is the ideal.

The 75% of Americans who are not Catholics would love that.

 

[SWolf]

The 75% of Americans who are not Catholics would love that.

So?

 

[philipl]

Yes. That is the ideal.

Not this catholic!

 

[SWolf]

Yes. That is the ideal.

Interesting. We have agreement there. Personakly, the only way I can accept single payer is through a Catholic State.

 

[Inisfallen]

So?

State religions haven’t worked out all that well in the past, have they?

Even those (western) nations that still have an established church tend to downplay it, and allow religious freedom. It’s more ceremonial than anything else.

It would be a very hard sell to Americans (even aside from the demographic problem – I mean, is the Southern Baptist Convention likely to accept the establishment of the Catholic Church as America’s state church?). There’s that First Amendment thing, to start with, and you’d have a hard time getting the necessary Constitutional convention off the ground.

 

[Crossbones]

It’s not alright. I don’t think Medicare is efficient. The fact that it has been around for 50 years and that it is a political third rail is the only reason it won’t be fixed. The very things that Centisimus Annus warns about regarding the welfare state are coming to pass in Medicare. And they would be exacerbated by increasing the sphere of federal control over healthcare.

And that would be a consistent position. However, Bishops Finn and Naumann list it as a strength of the US system. That’s what I don’t understand as their position seems inconsistent.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I’m glad you agree. Yet somehow I don’t think you are being serious. If you think the WHO report is meaningful, explain how their terms and definitions have any relevance, especially with regard to access and equity.

You keep using the word “covered”. As Monte pointed out, what does this have to do with healthcare other than payment? The issue isn’t healthcare, the issue is paying for it. And government is the #1 reason costs have gone up, making it harder to pay for it.

Now, what makes it so hard to pay? That it is so expensive. For some reason, people seem to think that having someone else pay for it is the best way to handle costs. How about actually reducing costs?

And I’ve got the perfect fix. We can get 100% coverage by having the government offer a $1 policy to everyone. Only costs a bit of $350 million a year. That’s universal coverage. And it’s equitable. Everyone would have the exact same coverage. By the WHO’s reports standards, we’d have excellent access (everyone would have coverage) and excellent equity (everyone gets the exact same coverage). But I suspect that’s not good enough for those in favor of universal health care.

If instead government were to work in the margins, helping fill that gap between what individuals and private organizations do not manage to do, there would be 100% coverage. But government has to first work to reduce costs so that individuals and private organizations can afford to get the work done. Coverage mandates, banning or severely limiting HSAs and high deductible plans, reporting requirements, etc drive up costs–and every single one of these are government burdens. As the cost drops, more people can afford the coverage. As the mandated regulations are reduced, private organizations can afford to take on a greater share of the burden. And the margins get smaller, and the government spends less helping.

You know, your lame attempts at guilt tripping are getting old. Drop the shtick. Its condescending and tiresome. And if you are Hindu as your religion tagline claims, you shouldn’t even give two shits about what Christ thinks.

An easier way would be to have a new tax form: 1040 MED.

The hospital fills it out and the IRS pays them.

NO Government bureaucracy.

 

[stevegravy]

I may be opening a can of worms here, but, am I right on this? Our rights come from our Creator, not from the State. Where in scripture do we find the notion that health care is a right? Where in scripture do we see that the State must be responsible, must be benevolent? My reading of the Gospel is that the State has never been a trustworthy source for benevolence. If anything, the State – at least in the Bible – is inevitably a failure and is historically, something to be feared.Unless it is allied to the will of God (good luck with that!), the State is incapable of delivering the rights we receive from God. If we begin to believe that the State will supply us our needs and guarantee our rights, we are living in a fools paradise. We have to learn to live with it in humble obedience, Yes, but we must never accord it with the responsibility of guaranteeing our well-being. Indeed, as a people of God, we should have every reason to hold the State at a distance. “Put not your trust in princes, in mortal man in whom there is no salvation.” (Psalm 146). If Pope Francis claims that healthcare is a universal right (and not a consumer good), where does this notion come from? Is this something we find in the teachings of the Early Church Fathers? Augustine? Aquinas? Where does this “tradition” come from?

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

I may be opening a can of worms here, but, am I right on this? Our rights come from our Creator, not from the State. Where in scripture do we find the notion that health care is a right? Where in scripture do we see that the State must be responsible, must be benevolent? My reading of the Gospel is that the State has never been a trustworthy source for benevolence. If anything, the State – at least in the Bible – is inevitably a failure and is historically, something to be feared.Unless it is allied to the will of God (good luck with that!), the State is incapable of delivering the rights we receive from God. If we begin to believe that the State will supply us our needs and guarantee our rights, we are living in a fools paradise. We have to learn to live with it in humble obedience, Yes, but we must never accord it with the responsibility of guaranteeing our well-being. Indeed, as a people of God, we should have every reason to hold the State at a distance. “Put not your trust in princes, in mortal man in whom there is no salvation.” (Psalm 146). If Pope Francis claims that healthcare is a universal right (and not a consumer good), where does this notion come from? Is this something we find in the teachings of the Early Church Fathers? Augustine? Aquinas? Where does this “tradition” come from?

I don’t think you are opening a can of worms, just a bible.

That is not to say provision of health care in some form or in some cases is not very important, and something humans should do for one another.

But the term “right” has both implicit and explicit meaning embedded in it, and simply throwing it out adds import to healthcare, but seemingly does so in am inaccurate or false way.

It’s akin to seeing a few cases of influenza pop up in a small own while killing its hosts, and then referring to it as the recent “flu epidemic.” It is not an epidemic. it is serious, and should be treated as such, but an epidemic has specific meaning.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

An easier way would be to have a new tax form: 1040 MED.

The hospital fills it out and the IRS pays them.

NO Government bureaucracy.

There could also be a 1040 VET form.

Veterans would get the hospital to fill it out and mail it to the IRS and get paid that way.

Again, NO government bureaucracy.

 

[SWolf]

State religions haven’t worked out all that well in the past, have they?

And secular states have?

Even those (western) nations that still have an established church tend to downplay it, and allow religious freedom. It’s more ceremonial than anything else.

It would be a very hard sell to Americans (even aside from the demographic problem – I mean, is the Southern Baptist Convention likely to accept the establishment of the Catholic Church as America’s state church?). There’s that First Amendment thing, to start with, and you’d have a hard time getting the necessary Constitutional convention off the ground.

Individual states had State religions after the revolutionary war. Also, you can have freedom of religion and still have a state religion.

All authority comes from the lord, and none of the above rebuts the simple fact that a Catholic State, if there is to be a state at all, is the ideal.

 

[SWolf]

I may be opening a can of worms here, but, am I right on this? Our rights come from our Creator, not from the State. Where in scripture do we find the notion that health care is a right? Where in scripture do we see that the State must be responsible, must be benevolent? My reading of the Gospel is that the State has never been a trustworthy source for benevolence. If anything, the State – at least in the Bible – is inevitably a failure and is historically, something to be feared.Unless it is allied to the will of God (good luck with that!), the State is incapable of delivering the rights we receive from God. If we begin to believe that the State will supply us our needs and guarantee our rights, we are living in a fools paradise. We have to learn to live with it in humble obedience, Yes, but we must never accord it with the responsibility of guaranteeing our well-being. Indeed, as a people of God, we should have every reason to hold the State at a distance. “Put not your trust in princes, in mortal man in whom there is no salvation.” (Psalm 146). If Pope Francis claims that healthcare is a universal right (and not a consumer good), where does this notion come from? Is this something we find in the teachings of the Early Church Fathers? Augustine? Aquinas? Where does this “tradition” come from?

Yup. There’s a reason God recommended against giving the Israelites a king.