Socialized healthcare

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

COPLAND_3

Guest
Has the Church shown any favor towards universal healthcare? I personally think it is a bad idea, but I am also **Catholic first **and I am willing to consider anything that the Church favors. I am interested in any quotes from Vatican about this topic. Thank you!
 
Not in the method your probably asking about. The Church holds we are responsible to provide reasonable care however the structure of that care is not defined
 
Has the Church shown any favor towards universal healthcare? I personally think it is a bad idea, but I am also **Catholic first **and I am willing to consider anything that the Church favors. I am interested in any quotes from Vatican about this topic. Thank you!
We need to first define what socialism is and we can then answer the question. Socialism is an economic system where the state owns and controls the means of production.

Now, there are several proposals out there, none of which are actually socialized medicine. There are proposals for single-payer, mandates to purchase private insurance or medical savings accounts…along with all sorts of in-between ideas.

As an editorial note, there are those who say that single-payer is socialism. What is ignored is the fact that the doctors and hospitals would remain as they currently are, whether public or private owned, which means that the state does NOT own and control the means of production; therefore, not socialist.
 
Texas Roofer has it. We are obligated to help the less fortunate. How we help the less fortunate is a matter of prudence and does not obligate a certain program. In fact, Benedict XVI specifically warned in Deus Caritas Est against giving over of charitable work entirely to the State as it reduces those cared for to objects. Free hay, a barn, and medicine for human cattle in a manner of speaking.
 
What people tend to forget is that we already have ‘socialized health care’, for the most expensive class of citizens - the elderly (Medicare).
 
We need to first define what socialism is and we can then answer the question. Socialism is an economic system where the state owns and controls the means of production.
Socialism is a dictatorial system where the state owns and controls the means of production as well as owns the people themselves.
Now, there are several proposals out there, none of which are actually socialized medicine.
Most of the proposals are socialized medicine.
There are proposals for single-payer, mandates to purchase private insurance or medical savings accounts…along with all sorts of in-between ideas.
dictatorial.
 
I am afraid that government run healthcare will eventually put the private sector out to where the government will end up “having” to take over. I was wondering if the Church has touched on the pros and cons. And I was wondering if the Church has shown favor to gov. run heathcare or private.
 
Yep, that’s the problem. I have yet to see a well-managed, efficient, corruption-free government program.

I’d wager that most everyone here on the CAF wouldn’t mind their taxes if they were used efficiently to help those truly in need, weren’t enabling a dependant subclass of poor, and weren’t lining the pockets of corrupt politicians.
 
I am afraid that government run healthcare will eventually put the private sector out to where the government will end up “having” to take over. I was wondering if the Church has touched on the pros and cons. And I was wondering if the Church has shown favor to gov. run heathcare or private.
The government props up private insurance now, by taking on all the people who are expensive to cover. If the government stopped, the scenario you fear would undoubtedly unfold.
 
I am afraid that government run healthcare will eventually put the private sector out to where the government will end up “having” to take over. I was wondering if the Church has touched on the pros and cons. And I was wondering if the Church has shown favor to gov. run heathcare or private.
The Church has not, should not, probably will not
The government props up private insurance now, by taking on all the people who are expensive to cover. If the government stopped, the scenario you fear would undoubtedly unfold.
One possible win-win scenario is the government providing catastrophic insurance ie over 50k per year per person that would greatly impact the affordability of private insurance since the cap would stop losses at 50k. We might see premiums drop by 50%-75% or more, because private insurance would be GAP insurance say after $2k but not exceeding $50k.
 
One possible win-win scenario is the government providing catastrophic insurance ie over 50k per year per person that would greatly impact the affordability of private insurance since the cap would stop losses at 50k. We might see premiums drop by 50%-75% or more, because private insurance would be GAP insurance say after $2k but not exceeding $50k.
Something along those lines could really be a win. Remember, Medicare is the worst of all worlds. It is an insurance pool, with basically exactly the population that private insurance looks to exclude Further, it is now constrained from using it’s buying power to negotiate in areas like drug pricing, so it can’t effect runaway inflation in that area. Still, it continues to outperform private delivery in terms of cost managment and administrative overhead.

So, giving a system a bigger pool, and more negotiating power would help get those costs lower. And it would force private insurers to actually offer value add service. Right now, they work as a product of necessity, with the ability to aggressively exclude.
 
I am afraid that government run healthcare will eventually put the private sector out to where the government will end up “having” to take over. I was wondering if the Church has touched on the pros and cons. And I was wondering if the Church has shown favor to gov. run heathcare or private.
There are many places with efficient single payer systems that have not changed into state run hospitals or state employed doctors

Some places of the world consider health care just another basic utility like water, sewer, or roads that are necessary for promoting the general welfare.

but there are too many people making too much under the current US system for it ever to be rationalized.
 
Socialism is a dictatorial system where the state owns and controls the means of production as well as owns the people themselves.
That would be communism. Let’s keep our definitions clear, shall we?

There are socialist democracies. People in our federal system, where power is shared among its various parts (i.e, states), tend to think of a unitary system, where the power is centralized in a single nexus (i.e., dictator, senate, etc.), as dictatorial. This is not always so as France has a unitary government but is has an economy tilted toward the socialist but is still a democracy.
Most of the proposals are socialized medicine.
Again, only if you redefine your tems. Doctors and other health care facilities would remain as they currently are, publicly or privately owned, which means not socialist. Want an example of socialized medicine in the United States? The Veteran’s Administration. It is fully owned and operated by the Federal government and has been severely underfunded.
dictatorial.
Humphrey’s beloved magical medical savings accounts are dictatorial? I’d love to read his response to that.
 
There are many places with efficient single payer systems that have not changed into state run hospitals or state employed doctors

Some places of the world consider health care just another basic utility like water, sewer, or roads that are necessary for promoting the general welfare.

but there are too many people making too much under the current US system for it ever to be rationalized.
Canada would be a good example. It is really just a government health insurance plan. Of course, it has problems. The pool is already tiny by US standards, and they divide it into 10 seperate programs. But although it still largely a private system and has far fewer constraints on prescribed care than the typical HMO, it is significantly cheaper than the US system and seems to outperform us in terms of outcome (ex. ranks 30th vs. 36th for the US according to the WHO).

And, yet again, we have a similiar system here, which fairs quite well against the private sector. But, most likely because of the massive amounts of money involved ($0.05 of every dollar generated in the GDP goes to private sector health care administration!) - as you suggest, it is difficult to expand or change.
 
There are places in this world where you are given a health insurance number when you’re born and you have it the rest of your life.

It is portable
You don’t have to worry about pre-existing conditions
You aren’t forced to keep a lousy job just for the benefits
Small employers aren’t at a disadvantage for recruiting

No multiple system paper work morass
No HMO or Government bureaucrats

In the US they’ll cover you if you poor, old, a child, a vet, a government employee, or an office holder
And if you try to change those there will be an uproar
But somehow if the average guy wants in (and I would imagine that expanding the pool of insured would vastly lower the average risk associated with it i.e. $$$) it is somehow “socialized” or “dictatorial”
 
Yep, that’s the problem. I have yet to see a well-managed, efficient, corruption-free government program.

I’d wager that most everyone here on the CAF wouldn’t mind their taxes if they were used efficiently to help those truly in need, weren’t enabling a dependant subclass of poor, and weren’t lining the pockets of corrupt politicians.
Actually, most taxes goes to military spending…

globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp

I will say this about a “dependant subclass”: the number of people who do not have the ability to prosper on their own is higher than you think and I am skeptical of current policies ( including all liberal and conservative proposals) to rectify that problem. They are truly needy. (No, I do not believe redistribution will solve the problem, but this is the primary reason why I support redistribution because it addresses unfairness that we cannot currently control.) It is an extremely refractory and ostensibly insurmountable problem. They will always be dependant (in some aspects of their life), unfortunately, but Jesus says that the poor will always be with us.
 
Steveanderson, you are right, there are countries like that. But believe me, you don’t want to live there or have to live under that kind of health system. Its usually terrible care, if available at all, and the taxes the people endure to fund it make ours look like chump change. Talk to a Canadian sometime, and you will see what I mean. It sounds great, but it doesn’t work. At least to our standards.
Roofer’s idea is one I never heard, and its pretty interesting. I don’t know if all his facts and statistics are accurate, but they may be
I’m waiting to see how the Mass. plan works out. It will take a couple years to determine its effectiveness, but I can see merits in it.
 
Hi All,
Canada does not have universal coverage for all conditions. They have rationed care. If you are #5001 on the list for a heart transplant, you have 3 choices:
  1. Die
  2. Wait and hope to get on next years’ list
  3. Come to the US for a heart transplant
    The VAST MAJORITY of US citizens have the best health care on the planet, they just have to work for it.
    About 20% of our citizens do not have coverage, and many of those DO NOT WANT OR NEED IT!
    For those who don’t have, but want it (a freebie, if you will) , they are not going to work for it, YOU ARE. This is where the socialism comes into play- get those who will not benefit from it to pay for it. If the US goes with any form of universal coverage/ social medicine/ single payer (a massive euphemism for the US Gov’t is THE SINGLE PAYER) we have tipped over the edge into Gov’t control of all health care. Question: When was the last time our reps in DC actually wanted to reduce taxation and GET
    OUT of a government program? And when was the last time they received accolades from the general public for efficiency, cost containment, and staying on mission when delivering a service to the taxpayer?
 
Hi All,
Canada does not have universal coverage for all conditions. They have rationed care. If you are #5001 on the list for a heart transplant, you have 3 choices:
  1. Die
  2. Wait and hope to get on next years’ list
  3. Come to the US for a heart transplant
    The VAST MAJORITY of US citizens have the best health care on the planet, they just have to work for it.
    About 20% of our citizens do not have coverage, and many of those DO NOT WANT OR NEED IT!
    For those who don’t have, but want it (a freebie, if you will) , they are not going to work for it, YOU ARE. This is where the socialism comes into play- get those who will not benefit from it to pay for it. If the US goes with any form of universal coverage/ social medicine/ single payer (a massive euphemism for the US Gov’t is THE SINGLE PAYER) we have tipped over the edge into Gov’t control of all health care. Question: When was the last time our reps in DC actually wanted to reduce taxation and GET
    OUT of a government program? And when was the last time they received accolades from the general public for efficiency, cost containment, and staying on mission when delivering a service to the taxpayer?
Hearts are a finite resource, but if your rich, you can buy organs from destitute Indians.
 
Hi All,
Canada does not have universal coverage for all conditions. They have rationed care. If you are #5001 on the list for a heart transplant, you have 3 choices:
  1. Die
  2. Wait and hope to get on next years’ list
  3. Come to the US for a heart transplant
I think you have been listening to too much right wing talk radio. The problem with heart transplants is donors. Canada is a much smaller total population pool:

cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=media_22sep2004_e

Desite our bigger pool, our aging population makes the disparity in rates pretty small:

americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4588

There are undoubtedly waits for elective procedures, like hip transplants, but, again, it is a tiny population spending a fraction of what we spend, for better measurable outcome (access to care, approppriateness of care, longevity, etc.)
The VAST MAJORITY of US citizens have the best health care on the planet, they just have to work for it.
As much as I appreciate the chant “U S A” at the Olympics, there is nothing to back this up. The WHO ranks us 36th, essentially dead last among industrialized nations. The only thing we rank #1 in is expenditures.
If the US goes with any form of universal coverage/ social medicine/ single payer (a massive euphemism for the US Gov’t is THE SINGLE PAYER) we have tipped over the edge into Gov’t control of all health care.
Something that never seems to get mentioned on right wing outlets is that we are there, and have been so for decades. Medicare is single payer universal coverage, and basically props up the entire US medical system by taking on the most expensive segment of the population to care for. And it consistantly outperforms the private sector in cost of care and administrative overhead.

Health care is experiencing 10-18% annual inflation. That is unsustainable and a serious impediment to global competitiveness. We already ration care more aggressively than virtually any other industrialized nation, all while spending significantly more of our GDP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top