Should the US expand Medicaid to 400% of the Federal Poverty Level

[QwertyGirl]

I think it depends on the available resources. In the U.S., in my opinion, universal health care should be considered a right because we have the resources and the technology, etc. to support it. I realize people argue we don’t…but we really do. Delivery is the real issue. It is the same concept as declaring that in the wealthiest country in the world nobody should go to bed hungry at night because they can’t afford or don’t have access to food. Should never happen.

I don’t know how one can say universal health care is a human right in a dirt poor country that has no resources, no technology, no doctors, etc. It seems sort of silly. Of course, if you are looking at things globally, the argument could be made that, as humans, this issue has no boarders and it is the responsibilty of the human race to take care of each other regardless of geographical location. That is a much broader argument.

 

[Augustinian]

In the U.S., in my opinion, universal health care should be considered a right because we have the resources and the technology, etc. to support it.

Do we? The government can certainly give everyone “coverage”, sure its just a matter of a little bit of data entry and printing and issuing ID cards.

But that’s not the same as providing actual health care.

Getting actual care out to people across the great expanse of the United State in an equitable fashion, ensuring the folks way out on the prairie and in the remote hollows of Appalachia have the same access to quality care is a problem. Remember, not all doctors are of the same quality. Folks in scattered locations should have the same access to the top flight doctors.

I believe the introduction of expanded Medicaid under the ACA may be the hidden cause of the Opioid epidemic. Doctors pressed to help people, many new patients, with chronic conditions write scrips for narcotics to get them moving. A lot of these doctors aren’t top-tier, and they are pressed for time in small town Americana. Small town clinics don’t have the diagnostic equipment, giving people some oxycontin and hoping they get over it sometimes works. Many conditions , the majority, resolve on their own.

Look at the graph of the opioid epidemic and remember when the ACA kicked in beginning about 2010

Drug Overdose Death Rates | National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)

 

[QwertyGirl]

As my post said, I am of the belief that delivery is the real challenge. With regards to the opioid crisis, I believe the medical field has a long way to go in developing methods for real pain management. I have family members who have chronic health conditions that require intense pain management if they are to live a life of quality. They are in great programs at top tier medical facilities. Thank God they have access to that. When a doctor who is lacking training in pain management suggests a patient should learn meditation or deep breathing, without any medical intervention, it is a really sad day. Many patients decide they no longer wish to live, given the chronic severity of pain and their crappy quality of life. It is a cycle, and they will pop pills if need be. If the government wants to get serious about addressing the opioid crisis, it will provide resources to get medical professionls and the facilities they work in up to speed on how to effectively manage pain. We live in a time where we have learned how to extend life far beyond our ability to maintain an acceptable quality of life. In days gone by, many of the conditions people now need pain management for would have killed them much sooner. This isn’t a Medicaid issue. It isn’t a “lack of resources” issue. It is a problem with the medical industry not keeping up with the very progress it has created in other areas.

To summarize…no I don’t think your hypothesis about the opioid crisis is rooted in truth.

 

[deMontfort]

You know what else should be a human right? (Free) heat and AC. Free food. Free water. Free transportation. Free shelter!
Why aren’t all of these human rights? Because we can’t live without them, right? Pope Francis is falling down on the job by not proclaiming these all to be (free) human rights!

Don’t give him any ideas…

 

[DarkLight]

You know what else should be a human right? (Free) heat and AC. Free food. Free water. Free transportation. Free shelter!
Why aren’t all of these human rights? Because we can’t live without them, right? Pope Francis is falling down on the job by not proclaiming these all to be (free) human rights!

I’m pretty sure the church does in fact talk about all having access to that. The point isn’t though that it needs to be free, necessarily, but that it needs to be something that people can access without having to choose between paying rent and medical bills.

 

[JimG]

You know what else should be a human right? (Free) heat and AC. Free food. Free water. Free transportation. Free shelter!
Why aren’t all of these human rights? Because we can’t live without them, right? Pope Francis is falling down on the job by not proclaiming these all to be (free) human rights!

According to the quote from Pacem in Terris previously quoted, many of these are already stated as human rights. It makes me wonder if Paul’s admonition to the Thessalonians that any one who will not work shall not eat, was a violation of social justice.

“But first We must speak of man’s rights. Man has the right to live. He has the right to bodily integrity and to the means necessary for the proper development of life, particularly food, clothing, shelter, medical care, rest, and, finally, the necessary social services.”

–from Pacem in Terris

 

[DarkLight]

It makes me wonder if Paul’s admonition to the Thessalonians that any one who will not work shall not eat, was a violation of social justice.

I think most people interpret that to say that social justice is met by providing work that the person is able to perform and that suffices to allow them to pay for the goods they need. The problem comes when such work is not available. (There are more nuances, of course - for example, I would say as a Catholic this should involve a reasonable opportunity to have a family without requiring one parent to be absent from the child’s life due to work.)

 

[Crocus]

Remember, not all doctors are of the same quality.

What is missing here? Why are not all doctors of high quality? Is there not a regulating body to assure quality care? Are Americans ok with that?

As an extension, perhaps the money spent on malpractice insurance could be better utilized towards actual quality care.

 

[Augustinian]

What is missing here? Why are not all doctors of high quality? Is there not a regulating body to assure quality care? Are Americans ok with that?

Not everyone cares the same, not everyone is equally knowledgable, not every doctor is as sharp, not everyone works as hard.

Medical doctors are the same as people in every line of work.

There are indeed, certain minimal standards that regulatory boards enforce.

That’s the same in every country and among every people in every profession.

 

[pnewton]

And I’m stunned that Catholics debate this without (well hardly ever) referencing the extensive Church teaching on the subject.

Or worse, Church teaching is contradicted, or belittled. As in:

You know what else should be a human right? (Free) heat and AC. Free food. Free water. Free transportation. Free shelter!
Why aren’t all of these human rights? Because we can’t live without them, right? Pope Francis is falling down on the job by not proclaiming these all to be (free) human rights!

The first quote I posted was from Pope John XXIII. St. John Paul commissioned the Compendium of Catholic Social Doctrine in the second quote. If you have a beef, it is with the whole of the Catholic Church and the social doctrine on the subject that has existed as long as modern medicine. It is a Catholic doctrine, not a Pope Francis doctrine.

 

[pnewton]

Not everyone cares the same, not everyone is equally knowledgable, not every doctor is as sharp, not everyone works as hard.

I would even say that expecting healthcare to be equally available to everyone is unreasonable. The question we need to ask is whether what we think is reasonable, and that may differ, and in which direction are we moving, which is more factual. The poor are becoming worse off and the rich better. If we were a civilized society, that gap would be converging, not diverging.

 

[gazelam]

The poor are becoming worse off and the rich better. If we were a civilized society, that gap would be converging, not diverging.

And it would be happening without government intervention!!

 

[pnewton]

pnewton:

The poor are becoming worse off and the rich better. If we were a civilized society, that gap would be converging, not diverging.

And it would be happening without government intervention!!

That is a matter of pure speculation, as is all forms of alternative history. The fact remains, it is happening. The problem with this idea of “the government” is that it is used to separate us as a society from our responsibility as a society. “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

 

[RCIAGraduate]

Yes but isn’t the risk that government is going to supplant and replace the role of man and community? For example, I understand there is a capacity issue but if the government took care of everyone, wouldn’t that take away or at the very least hinder our personal purpose of caring for the poor? That said, perhaps the US can strike a balance by ensuring a minimal or basic safety net but emphasizing the need for community involvement?

 

[Augustinian]

The poor are becoming worse off and the rich better.

I disagree with this conclusion.

The poor are doing better than they have done historically in the United States, from this vantage point.

the vast majority have AC, televisions, private phones, it isn’t the “grapes of wrath” out there for the poor.

In the field of health care, poor people can receive organ transplants on medicaid , orthodontic work on their kids
2018 in the time is a lot better time to be poor in America than previous eras.

 

[RCIAGraduate]

Perhaps right now and during part of the 90’s but there does seem to be difficulties and issues present. For example, living costs like housing (in addition to health care) are going up and student debt is becoming a problem for many people which can hinder the path way to the Middle Class such as saving for a house or retirement. Jobs look good for now but there could be more full-time opportunities for those in need, especially if we would like to reduce dependency and the need for welfare and public assistance (and build a tax base to support our social services and the safety net for those in need) . How can we help our poor and working class integrate and move up into the middle class while making the middle class much more secure and stable (and maybe even help some of them enter the upper middle class)? A vast middle class majority (75% to 85%) can be helpful in creating strong and cohesive communities and building up civil institutions like our community’s charities (i.e food banks, domestic violence shelters, service organizations).

 

[pnewton]

The poor are becoming worse off and the rich better.

I was referring to the declining life expectancy among the poorest, and the increasing gap in life expectancy based on one’s income. Life or death is the most “in your face” measure of how society, or a portion of society, is faring.

 

[Augustinian]

I was referring to the declining life expectancy among the poorest, and the increasing gap in life expectancy based on one’s income.

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. You can be in the best of health, but if someone caps you, you are a statistic.

 

[jeannetherese]

When the government is calling the shots and is pro abortion, abortion tends to be part of the package. 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. It’s a pro death decision in the name of improving outcomes for those more powerful than the marginalized in the womb.

 

[pnewton]

When the government is calling the shots…

Once again, look in the mirror to see the government. We are the government. Yes abortion is something we must not accept, but neither are other preventable deaths. The Church is pro-life, not just pro-birth.