It seems to be declining, but you make a valid point. Correlation does not equal causation. For example, greater drug use rates could also be a factor. This is why we do not have to agree on solutions, like the topic of the thread for example, but Catholic should agree on the principle for darn sure.Is life expectancy actually declining among the poor? It might not be rising that much, but I think the largest rising cause of death in a lot of poor areas isn’t lack of health care but more due to violence.
Well, that would have to come from the states since the Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funding of abortions.Voting for a government health care program which includes abortion means signing off on abortion, funding it with our tax dollars, and being complicit in the killing of children.
Here in Pittsburgh, a lot of people don’t have automobiles and take the bus or uber. Of course, cell phones are provided Free to poor people through the Obama Phone programThere’s also the issue of changing expectations. At least where I am, access to a car and a cell is pretty much considered a requirement to have a job.
Yeah, that one depends on where we are. Here, the bus hours are very limited, and they don’t go far (most people at my work can’t afford to live near the bus routes, unless they live with parents). When I asked around, the answer was basically they don’t want to hire people who ride the bus, because they’re not available enough and they can be unreliable because the bus system is unreliable.Here in Pittsburgh, a lot of people don’t have automobiles and take the bus or uber. Of course, cell phones are provided Free to poor people through the Obama Phone program
your quote indicates those products and services should be available, not free.Healthcare most certainly is human right. From Pacem in Terris:
I think we are in agreement with the cost of primary care,don’t think anyone’s saying they truly need to be free - just that they shouldn’t be priced out so some people can’t afford them. The trouble right now in the U.S. is we have a gap where people are making too much to be eligible for assistance, but not enough to be able to afford care on their own.
That’s what it says. Available, not free. Whether it needs to be free, or a dollar per surgery, for some/ten thousand for others, is what can be debated.your quote indicates those products and services should be available, not free.
I only say that when I see abortion trotted out like a tool to trade off on other pro-life issues.I would never say that they Church is ‘just’ pro-birth.
If a treatment means living or dying, then do you propose that we place a monetary value on the life of an indigent person? My own opinion is that we aggressively attack the problem of why some procedures are so expensive, when then do not strictly need to be. Martin Shkreli did not act in a vacuum when he maximized profits at the expense of life. It if not him, but the economics that made him, that prompt me to suggest we re-structure medical patents to make his actions impossible. I do believe it is cheaper in the long run, unless we want to just right off those who cost too much to keep alive.but some treatments and procedures are very costly, I don’t think they should be heavily subsidized
Everyone’s life can be extended with expensive treatments due to the wonders of modern medicine.If a treatment means living or dying, then do you propose that we place a monetary value on the life of an indigent person? My own opinion is that we aggressively attack the problem of why some procedures are so expensive, when then do not strictly need to be.
At least Obama’s plan include a chance to evaluate this. Ironic it was Republicans that railed against death panels. We do not owe the poor transplants because there are not enough to go around. However, thanks to so far-sighted progressives, money is not a factor on who goes first in the transplant list.Everyone’s life can be extended with expensive treatments due to the wonders of modern medicine.
No, we don’t owe indigent people free heart and lung transplants. Our moral obligation is basic care.
Resources have always been scarce and there have always been people making the call (death panels). I disagreed with that characterization of ACA.At least Obama’s plan include a chance to evaluate this. Ironic it was Republicans that railed against death panels.
That’s been the fuss over epipens lately. Basically prices go up just because they figure, if people have to buy the pens or die they’ll buy the pens.What about those areas that aren’t scarce, like pharmaceuticals? Is being price-prohibited (at least under an unregulated market) considered a resource issue?
Expensive drugs are scarce, by definition. I would like to see meaningful changes that increase competition and reduce the pricing of most drugs. As it is now, it’s the US consumer that is funding the above norm profits and research costs for the drug companies. You shouldn’t have to go to Canada to find affordable drugs.What about those areas that aren’t scarce, like pharmaceuticals? Is being price-prohibited (at least under an unregulated market) considered a resource issue?
Another consideration is equipment. There is only so much, so many surgeries, so many MRI’s etc. that can be done. I think hospitals usually prioritize based on need, not ability to pay. I may be a little biased now that the primary hospital where I live is under Catholic Health Initiative.
They are scarce by design. Production will not exceed what they can sell at the cost that is being demanded. The idea of the super high pricing has little to do with actual production costs, and more to do with either passing on R and D, or as we have seen proven in court, profiteering. True, you shouldn’t have to go to Canada, or order illegally, some drugs. But if the life of a loved one was at stake, who wouldn’t?Expensive drugs are scarce, by definition