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.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!
Socialism is a dictatorial system where the state owns and controls the means of production as well as owns the people themselves.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.
Most of the proposals are socialized medicine.Now, there are several proposals out there, none of which are actually socialized medicine.
dictatorial.There are proposals for single-payer, mandates to purchase private insurance or medical savings accounts…along with all sorts of in-between ideas.
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 notI 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.
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.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.
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.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.
There are many places with efficient single payer systems that have not changed into state run hospitals or state employed doctorsI 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.
That would be communism. Let’s keep our definitions clear, shall we?Socialism is a dictatorial system where the state owns and controls the means of production as well as owns the people themselves.
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.Most of the proposals are socialized medicine.
Humphrey’s beloved magical medical savings accounts are dictatorial? I’d love to read his response to that.dictatorial.
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).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.
Actually, most taxes goes to military spending…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.
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:
- Die
- Wait and hope to get on next years’ list
- 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?
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: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:
- Die
- Wait and hope to get on next years’ list
- Come to the US for a heart transplant
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.The VAST MAJORITY of US citizens have the best health care on the planet, they just have to work for it.
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.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.