Should broke people receive health care?

  • Thread starter Thread starter consumedconvert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

consumedconvert

Guest
I know a lot of people complain that “healthcare is not a right.” I used to be one of them, before I was a Catholic.

I would not call it a “right” in the sense that freedom of religion is a “right”. Everyone who can afford health insurance/health care should pay a fair price for it. But should people who cannot pay for healthcare received healthcare?

I suggest we approach the debate from a different angle. If a society has the ability to save someone’s life through medical treatment, does that society have the moral right to deny them that treatment because they cannot pay for it?

A step further. Would it be right to deny a child life-saving medical treatment because his parents could not pay for it?

Again, would it be right to deny a grown man a treatment that would save his ability to walk and therefore his livelyhood, simply because he would not pay for it?

Thankfully there are no longer hospitals (that I know of) who will turn away seriously injured or endangered patients because of inability to pay.

Here’s my own true story. My wife was rushed to a “magnet” hospital forty miles away in order to prevent her delivering three months early. She stayed at that hospital one month. When our son was born, over two months early, he had to stay in various special needs nursuries for a month. When he was in neonatal intensive care, it cost an average of $4,700 a day to keep him alive. The final cost is yet being tallied, but already exceeds $100,000; I suspect that when the final hospital gives us a statement, it will bring that total to around $130,000.

We were dramatically underinsured for such an event. We had a choice: either go on Medicare or declare bankruptcy. Either way we would be a drain on society; I chose the former.

Here’s the question: should Medicare have been available for us? Should my wife and my son have had access to the excellent care that undoubtedly saved my son’s life? Or is about $130,000 too much for society to spend on one infant life?

OK, final question: How “pro-life” are we?
 
consumedconvert said:
I know a lot of people complain that “healthcare is not a right.” I used to be one of them, before I was a Catholic.

I would not call it a “right” in the sense that freedom of religion is a “right”. Everyone who can afford health insurance/health care should pay a fair price for it. But should people who cannot pay for healthcare received healthcare?

I suggest we approach the debate from a different angle. If a society has the ability to save someone’s life through medical treatment, does that society have the moral right to deny them that treatment because they cannot pay for it?

A step further. Would it be right to deny a child life-saving medical treatment because his parents could not pay for it?

Again, would it be right to deny a grown man a treatment that would save his ability to walk and therefore his livelyhood, simply because he would not pay for it?

Thankfully there are no longer hospitals (that I know of) who will turn away seriously injured or endangered patients because of inability to pay.

Here’s my own true story. My wife was rushed to a “magnet” hospital forty miles away in order to prevent her delivering three months early. She stayed at that hospital one month. When our son was born, over two months early, he had to stay in various special needs nursuries for a month. When he was in neonatal intensive care, it cost an average of $4,700 a day to keep him alive. The final cost is yet being tallied, but already exceeds $100,000; I suspect that when the final hospital gives us a statement, it will bring that total to around $130,000.

We were dramatically underinsured for such an event. We had a choice: either go on Medicare or declare bankruptcy. Either way we would be a drain on society; I chose the former.

Here’s the question: should Medicare have been available for us? Should my wife and my son have had access to the excellent care that undoubtedly saved my son’s life? Or is about $130,000 too much for society to spend on one infant life?

OK, final question: How “pro-life” are we?
Click to expand...
You mean Medicaid right?

Thanks for starting a new thread. 👍
 
Sometimes I think society spends way too much on heroics. Doesn’t matter whether it’s insurance or the government, we all pitch in and a lot of time it’s a waste of money, for instance keeping people alive an extra two weeks in an ICU. Sometimes babies too small are saved as well. There should be limits set otherwise we will go broke.
 
consumedconvert said:
Medicwhatever. All I know is that its from the government :rolleyes: 😃
Click to expand...
actually it’s from YOU, the taxpayer. It’s one of the few things that we pay in taxes that we actually can benefit from in a time of need.

There are some things that our government uses our taxes for that benefit society and medical aid is one of the most important. I’m in one of the highest tax brackets with a little over 1/4 of my income going to pay just federal taxes. I personally take some comfort in knowing that at least some of the $$ I am forced to pay in taxes goes to help those truly in need rather than paying for luxury automobiles and planes for government employees or to pay for a $200,000 screwdriver.
 
Health care as a “right” has been most politicized, as we know.

Pols insist that health insurance is a right,and, of course, they (the Government) is best able to provide such care.

While in most cases good insurance means better health care, insurance is not a right.

Like with food, and shelter, health care is a basic need nowadays, and should IMHO be considered a right.
 
Newbie2 said:
Pols insist that health insurance is a right,and, of course, they (the Government) is best able to provide such care.

While in most cases good insurance means better health care, insurance is not a right.
Click to expand...
This sounds like a reasonable distinction, but perhaps we should first discuss whether access to health care is a basic human right. If we agree that it is, then the best way of providing access to medical care would be the next step of the discussion.
 
jssaxon said:
Sometimes I think society spends way too much on heroics. Doesn’t matter whether it’s insurance or the government, we all pitch in and a lot of time it’s a waste of money, for instance keeping people alive an extra two weeks in an ICU. Sometimes babies too small are saved as well. There should be limits set otherwise we will go broke.
Click to expand...
My son would disagree. He’s only here right now because of “heroics”. BTW, you would be amazed what they can do. At the hospital we went to, they have saved premies born at less than one pound!

I do, however, see your point about heroic measures to extend the life of the elderly a few months or weeks. Should we deny them that? I’d hate to think so. Maybe we should move to a more choice-based, frank system. “I’m sorry, but you’re dying. We can either take heroic measures and extend your life by a few months–but your quality if life will be nil and you’ll die in a hospital. Or you can sray home and die a little sooner in your own bed, with no doctors around, surrounded by your family.”

From this distance it appearrs that part of the problem is the false philosophy that thinks of old age as a disease and seek to snuggle as close to earthly immortality as possible (no offense). IMHO we need to look at life as a journey with an earthly end. But then, I’m not in my seventies, either.
 
RachelsAlumni said:
I personally take some comfort in knowing that at least some of the $$ I am forced to pay in taxes goes to help those truly in need rather than paying for luxury automobiles and planes for government employees or to pay for a $200,000 screwdriver.
Click to expand...
Why thank you! We appreciate your generosity, albeit forced 😃
 
Dale_M said:
This sounds like a reasonable distinction, but perhaps we should first discuss whether access to health care is a basic human right. If we agree that it is, then the best way of providing access to medical care would be the next step of the discussion.
Click to expand...
Interesting.

My assessment is that if it’s a basic human need, than it’s also a right; food, water, shelter. But not everyone needs health care to the same extent. Joe Blow might need a liver transplant while Moe Blow might not need to go to a physician except for his flu vaccination. Most everyone has similar needs, though, in terms of food and shelter.

I’d say, if one will get sick or die without it, it’s a basic human right.
 
$130000 isn’t too much to spend on the life of a newborn. It’s too much to spend to save a dog or a cat, but not a person of any age.

$130,000,000 is too much to add 6 months to the life of someone who is going to die anyway. And what would that 6 months be like…pain and treatments to delay the inevitable. I’m not saying the person’s value as a human being is lessened by his illness. I’d spend whatever it takes to make the person’s final time comfortable and as fruitful as possible, whatever that means to him.

And I believe that access to health care is a basic human right that should never be predicated by wealth or employment.
 
daeve said:
$130000 isn’t too much to spend on the life of a newborn. It’s too much to spend to save a dog or a cat, but not a person of any age.
Click to expand...
Waddya mean too much for a dog or cat?? That’s my living you’re talking about. :eek: 😃 If someone has that kind of money and is otherwise generous with their wealth to people in need, why not?

Is it any more wasteful than someone buying BMWs, Porches, Mercedes, etc.?

PS I have yet to have a client willing to spend that kind of money on their pet. 😉
 
Correct me if I am wrong about the evolution of healthcare rights:
  1. No insurance, no government assistance…you are on your own.
  2. Insurance available privately…you are still on your own, but with a method of pooling resources with others.
  3. Insurance available privately, some government assistance for the poor/elderly. You are kind of on your own, unless you are truly needy.
  4. Employer paid insurance (still typically 80/20), some government assistance
  5. Employer/employee paid insurance (HMO and 80/20), some government assistance.
  6. National healthcare (proposed)
I’m not sure any of those is a more moral position than the others. I think, as Catholics, what we should do is create a charitable group that would provide catastrophic coverage for those in need. Also, low cost clinics for preventative care, so some of those catastrophic events don’t occur.

I don’t think looking to “the government” is the correct solution. Forced charity is not charity IMO.
 
Newbie2 said:
Waddya mean too much for a dog or cat?? That’s my living you’re talking about. :eek: 😃 If someone has that kind of money and is otherwise generous with their wealth to people in need, why not?

Is it any more wasteful than someone buying BMWs, Porches, Mercedes, etc.?

PS I have yet to have a client willing to spend that kind of money on their pet. 😉
Click to expand...
Our porch came with our house…but we are thinking of adding to the deck in our backyard. 😃 😉
 
Here is a question: Should we be providing free health insurance for the able bodied who are too lazy to work? This big group I am talking about here are those over 65 who receive medicare, which is a form of government welfare. Many of these beneficiaries are able to work, but hey, why work when the government will pay you for doing nothing and give you free health insurance? I am limiting my point here to those who are able to work, should the government pay for health care for this group?

Now, if you are in favor of the government providing health care for the able bodied old who are too lazy to work, why not for the young?
 
daeve said:
$130000 isn’t too much to spend on the life of a newborn.

I’d spend whatever it takes to make the person’s final time comfortable and as fruitful as possible, whatever that means to him.

And I believe that access to health care is a basic human right that should never be predicated by wealth or employment.
Click to expand...
I agree that $130,000 is not too much to spend on a new born, but at some point it does become too much.

It can’t be an absolute right to any amount of healthcare. What if is cost $10 B to keep someone alive? Clearly as a society we can’t do that.

It’s a hard choice which is why it’s best to keep government out of it.

God Bless
 
bilop said:
I agree that $130,000 is not too much to spend on a new born, but at some point it does become too much.

It can’t be an absolute right to any amount of healthcare. What if is cost $10 B to keep someone alive? Clearly as a society we can’t do that.

It’s a hard choice which is why it’s best to keep government out of it.

God Bless
Click to expand...
Hmm, I do see your point, but your analogy is flawed. $10 billion is not a possible “what if” number, for one. In fact, in terms of real costs, it should probably not have cost $130,000 to save our baby (not that I’m complaining, mind you; his care was excellent). Something in the system’s broken. I’m no economist, but I know that when his special prescription diaper rash cream costs $85 for a two ounce tube, which was prescribed when over-the-counter butt paste didnt’ work, something’s broken in the pricing mechanism of medical care is broken. Call it a breakdown of free enterprise; people have no choice what medicine they need, so they have to pay for it no matter how much it costs. But that’s yet another post… :rolleyes:
 
Newbie2 said:
Turbo?😉
Click to expand...
Hmm…well, if I hire a guy named Rolf to do the work, who knows what I will get? As long as I can get from family room to patio furniture in less than 4 seconds, I think you could consider it “turbo”…maybe even “dual turbo.”

Okay, back to healthcare…
 
consumedconvert said:
Hmm, I do see your point, but your analogy is flawed. $10 billion is not a possible “what if” number, for one. In fact, in terms of real costs, it should probably not have cost $130,000 to save our baby (not that I’m complaining, mind you; his care was excellent). Something in the system’s broken. I’m no economist, but I know that when his special prescription diaper rash cream costs $85 for a two ounce tube, which was prescribed when over-the-counter butt paste didnt’ work, something’s broken in the pricing mechanism of medical care is broken. Call it a breakdown of free enterprise; people have no choice what medicine they need, so they have to pay for it no matter how much it costs. But that’s yet another post… :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Actually, the problem of costs has to do with insurance and medicare, exascerbated by HMOs. More people go to the doctors when they don’t need to, which has driven up costs. Unnecessary procedures have driven up costs. Government bureacracy inherent in Medicare/Medicaid has driven up costs. Finally, lawsuits have driven up costs.

I don’t think adding more government bureaucracy is the cure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top