Socialized healthcare

[Wedgewood]

I am going to tell you how the other half lives with this healthcare problem.

When the shop my husband worked at closed, we were left without healthcare. I work but my work doesn’t offer it. My husband did get another job but no healthcare offered and even though it is a professional job, it is at half the salary he was making. We made too much ($80,000) to qualify for our State Plan healthcare. Now our income is 1/2 of what it used to be and now we have to pay for healthcare. We pay $927 a month for high deductible coverage. Out of the blue I had a stroke. After insurance, my hospital bill was $32,000. Not to mention my prescription costs of $250 a month and we are still paying $927 for coverage. I will be paying for this hospital bill for 20 years.

Well I say enough is enough. Something has got to be done. I’m one job away from losing everything. If something happens to either one of our jobs now, everything we have worked for all these years is gone.

 

[steveandersen]

SteveandersEn, 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.

Why?

Its usually terrible care, if available at all, and the taxes the people endure to fund it make ours look like chump change.

Please provide examples of terrible care.
And why would the quality of US medical care degrade because there is one (or 52) insurance payers rather than hundreds?

The Dutch, the Danes, the Swedes, the Swiss all have excellent health care systems.

As for taxes it is difficult to compare since many nations structure their taxes differently
Also the cost of our insurance is divided between individual contributions, employer contributions (an adding expense our international competitors do not have to deal with), and taxes. (And of course the doctors who must deal with the insurance companies; if it takes 3 months to collect then each doctor is acting as a bank for ¼ of their yearly income)

But I don’t mind paying taxes for a service. That is what taxes are for after all

If all you’re worried about is low taxes then remember, you get what you pay for.

People get sick that is a fact of life. One way or another their care has to be paid for. Federal law require emergency care regardless of ability to pay so the cost of indigent care is carried by all in an un-funded mandate. Where does that money come from?

Medical care isn’t like food or electricity where people will use more and more if it is available.

It makes sense to fund it in the most efficient way.

I know that the “everybody else is doing it” rule is a bad reason for making policy
BUT the USA is the ONLY industrialized nation without a universal health care system of some sort. Some places in Europe have had it for over a century. They are healthier than us and pay less.
So it kinda makes you wonder……

Talk to a Canadian sometime, and you will see what I mean. It sounds great, but it doesn’t work.

They are a much healthier nation and pay far less per capita than the US.

The objection that some have to the Canadian system is that everybody is equal rather than the US system where the risk and worries are disproportionately borne by someone else.

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.

Yup
It will be interesting to see how it works out.

 

[steveandersen]

Hi All,

Hi, Johni

Canada does not have universal coverage for all conditions. They have rationed care.

all health care is rationed

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

Heart transplants are always rationed
There are only so many hearts to go around. We don’t make extra hearts in the US

In Canada you will get put on the list based upon your medical need
In the US you will be put on the list based on your medical needs IF you have coverage
Otherwise you do not even get the luxury of a high number on the list.

The VAST MAJORITY of US citizens have the best health care on the planet, they just have to work for it.

Actually they have to pay for it
A lot of people work but can’t afford it
The elderly, the poor and the indegent can get care and we must all pay for it.

About 20% of our citizens do not have coverage, and many of those DO NOT WANT OR NEED IT!

I will grant that many of the uninsured are health adults who probably… maybe ….might be able to take the risk of not being covered.
Most healthy adults don’t need the doctor that often
So I might concede on your “need” claim BUT why would you think that given the choice someone would turn down coverage?

And even if you are healthy… stuff happens. People get sick and or have accidents regardless of whether they want or need insurance. And if they can’t pay then the rest of us have to cover them anyhow. So if I have to pay then I have a voice in how that money is spent and I think that it is more cost effective to have even healthy adults get regular checkups and get treatment at a regular doctor’s office rather than an expensive emergency room.

For those who don’t have, but want it (a freebie, if you will) , they are not going to work for it, YOU ARE.

We already DO pay for it and in a very inefficient way

And no “freebie” is not a good choice of words

This is where the socialism comes into play- get those who will not benefit from it to pay for it.

Shared risk and expense is not socialism
It is what nations are for
There are many things the government does that don’t benefit me directly. But the idea is to promote the general welfare not just my own. If it is every man for himself then why bother having a country?

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.

Maybe, maybe not
What is the problem with that?

States already regulate the practice of medicine by licensing doctors, nurses, hospitals, & pharmacists. Drugs are regulated and insurance companies are regulated.

We already have government control of health care.

Question: When was the last time our reps in DC actually wanted to reduce taxation

pols fall over themselves all the time to offer tax cuts
The current administration made quite a big deal over it

and GET
OUT of a government program?

Programs are enacted for a reason
Which national park would you like to close?
Which aircraft carrier do you want to mothball?
Whose disabled Grandma do you want to get less social security?

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?

The military is generally given accolades (despite the occasional boondoggle program or $1000 screwdriver)
The USPS will get a letter anywhere for a few cents.
The science agencies and research labs do good work and are always tax starved.
Meat is inspected, extension offices are run, locks and dams operated, courts cases processed, aircraft are landed, highways are built, etc
The bulk of the government’s work moves along quietly and unnoticed.
(Except of course when someone cuts spending like say on bridge or levee maintenance but that is another story)

Now tell me, are the private insurance companies paragons of efficiency and virtue?

 

[Filius99993]

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.

No slaughterhouses, hopefully. Most of our tax mony is going towards the war.

 

[Namesake]

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!

Catholic first? So where does being an American fit in?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Catholic first? So where does being an American fit in?

AFTER Catholic. A Catholic living in any country must be informed by their religion FIRST, then by their nationality. One’s patriotism must always be tempered by their Catholicism. That’s why I am a Catholic American, not an American Catholic. Catholic modifies American in the former and American modifies (actually corrupts) Catholic in the latter.

 

[Filius99993]

AFTER Catholic. A Catholic living in any country must be informed by their religion FIRST, then by their nationality. One’s patriotism must always be tempered by their Catholicism. That’s why I am a Catholic American, not an American Catholic. Catholic modifies American in the former and American modifies (actually corrupts) Catholic in the latter.

Agreed! BOTH parties put their political agendas before their faiths, and that’s NOT how it’s supposed to work. It’s the the spiritual vs. physical debate again! Yay, Cartesianism!

 

[Namesake]

Actually, most taxes goes to military spending…

If you would do a serious study of $$$$ you would find that your statement isn’t true. Even the highest estimates for the USA is about 31% of the entire federal budget.

 

[Namesake]

AFTER Catholic. A Catholic living in any country must be informed by their religion FIRST, then by their nationality. One’s patriotism must always be tempered by their Catholicism. That’s why I am a Catholic American, not an American Catholic. Catholic modifies American in the former and American modifies (actually corrupts) Catholic in the latter.

Certainly JFK didn’t agree with that. He stated that he was not going to be influenced in his presidency by Rome. If it was good enough for JFK it should be good enough for any American.

You simply must be American first, if you are American. If you are Catholic first, maybe you should move.

 

[Filius99993]

Certainly JFK didn’t agree with that. He stated that he was not going to be influenced in his presidency by Rome. If it was good enough for JFK it should be good enough for any American.

You simply must be American first, if you are American. If you are Catholic first, maybe you should move.

JFK obviously wasn’t a very honest to goodness Catholic. Maybe you should move if you are an American before your are a Protestant… our dominant religion is still Christianity, last time I checked.

 

[Namesake]

JFK obviously wasn’t a very honest to goodness Catholic. Maybe you should move if you are an American before your are a Protestant… our dominant religion is still Christianity, last time I checked.

I am first an American. If you can’t say that then you have no business being in this country.

As to JFK, maybe you would like to read some history or take that issue up with his family.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Certainly JFK didn’t agree with that. He stated that he was not going to be influenced in his presidency by Rome. If it was good enough for JFK it should be good enough for any American.

Then JFK was wrong.

You simply must be American first, if you are American. If you are Catholic first, maybe you should move.

Wow. Show me that in the Bible or in Church Tradition.

Do you know what idolatry is? It’s a violation of the First Commandment which says, “You shall have no gods before Me.” Idolatry is a sin that leads to eternal death.

Just something to consider.

 

[Namesake]

Then JFK was wrong.

Wow. Show me that in the Bible or in Church Tradition.

Do you know what idolatry is? It’s a violation of the First Commandment which says, “You shall have no gods before Me.” Idolatry is a sin that leads to eternal death.

Just something to consider.

So then, you are first and foremost a Catholic? Not first an American? Were you in the military? Or maybe an elected official? You must take an oath to be in the military or to hold public office.

The first thing is to protect and defend the United States of America. Then you can be Catholic, as long as your religion doesn’t interfere with your service.

Would you actually argue that JFK was not a good Catholic because he refused to take orders from the Vatican?

 

[stinkcat_14]

The first thing is to protect and defend the United States of America. Then you can be Catholic, as long as your religion doesn’t interfere with your service.

Actually, if I was a soldier, and my commander told me to do something that violated the teaching of the Church, then I would refuse the order. For example, if I was a physician in the service and my commander ordered me to perform abortions, he would find that my religion interefered with my service.

Now my example is extreme, but I believe that some Catholics servicemen and women have sued the government because they were required to do something that violated their morals.

 

[ribozyme]

If you would do a serious study of $$$$ you would find that your statement isn’t true. Even the highest estimates for the USA is about 31% of the entire federal budget.

I probably didn’t mean to say most, but I meant to say a large fraction. That link said 41%.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Certainly JFK didn’t agree with that. He stated that he was not going to be influenced in his presidency by Rome. If it was good enough for JFK it should be good enough for any American.

You simply must be American first, if you are American. If you are Catholic first, maybe you should move.

If the US government passed a law saying all Christians must spit on the Bible, curse Christ, and pledge their souls to the devil, what would you do?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

So then, you are first and foremost a Catholic? Not first an American?

Absolutely and gratefully so!

Were you in the military? Or maybe an elected official? You must take an oath to be in the military or to hold public office.

No, but I do work as a Civil Servant for the State of California. As such, I took an oath (Latin: sacramentum) to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Being a Catholic doesn’t interfere with that. In fact, it makes me a better civil servant because I took my oath, not only before my manager but God Himself.

The first thing is to protect and defend the United States of America.

Actually, it’s the Constitution that one swear to preserve, protect and defend.

Then you can be Catholic, as long as your religion doesn’t interfere with your service.

Would you actually argue that JFK was not a good Catholic because he refused to take orders from the Vatican?

First, the Vatican doesn’t give “orders” to American presidents. He had to say that in order to correct a misunderstanding that many non-Catholics have about Catholics and the Papacy. The Church gives instructions to the faithful that we are all bound to obey, but it’s usually not so specific that it could be considered an “order.”

Second, God must ALWAYS come first. It’s the FIRST commandment. He demands it. He has a right to it. He damns people who do not put Him first (idolaters) and fail to repent. Be careful.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

If the US government passed a law saying all Christians must spit on the Bible, curse Christ, and pledge their souls to the devil, what would you do?

Tell them “Hell to the no!”

 

[wabrams]

For anybody interested in what government run healthcare would look like, go to your local health department. Do you want every healthcare facility to look and be run like that?

 

[steveandersen]

I probably didn’t mean to say most, but I meant to say a large fraction. That link said 41%.

Depends how and what you count
Security spending is <25% of the total budget but 60% of discretionary spending

So determining your basis is very important