Socialized healthcare

[jabelltulsa]

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.

That is yet to be determined, I think. For me, I believe that we should all be able to seek out our own protections and benefits using the faculties that God has bestowed upon us. I believe it is also our responsibility to assist those less fortunate around us.

Government run healthcare or any type of government assistance on a large scale would be run just like Social Security or welfare, and would be mismanaged. Our role as good, moral people is to help those around us (or those who are further away). It is Charity on the part of individuals that is going to be the most help to others.

The fact that I only keep about 65% (fed, state, local, sales, property taxes and SS/Medicare) of what I make strangles my ability to help others that are right near me. The little I can help those in need near me requires so much sacrifice, that I am sometimes unable to do so.

Why do we want to relieve ourselves from the ability to enact our Charity on our own? It seems that those who believe in a national healthcare system have lost faith in basic Christian Charity. I believe that if we were allowed to keep more of our own money, the Holy Spirit would guide us to really be charitable and use our money effectively to help those in need of healthcare and just basic assistance.

I have faith in the Holy Spirit, rather than bureaucratic government. Socialized medicine will be yet another failed governmental experiment that will be bankrupt in 50 or so years. Have we not learned our lesson yet?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I have faith in the Holy Spirit, rather than bureaucratic government. Socialized medicine will be yet another failed governmental experiment that will be bankrupt in 50 or so years. Have we not learned our lesson yet?

There are those anxious that we not learn it.

The Social Security Administration tells us that Social Security will be solvent for the next 35 to 70 years (depending on the scenario you choose.)

What they don’t tell you is this is true only if the Government is able to repay the money it “borrowed” from Social Security. Last time I checked, that amounted to some 20% of the total National Debt.

Let’s see the hands of those who think Congress can not only stop ripping off Social Security, but also pay back what they “borrowed.”

 

[mapleoak]

I’m sorry, I don’t get the math. Health care has been experiencing 10-18% inflation for several years. No moderate risk investment structure can keep up with that. Also, there is the sheer cost. We are talking about the cost of a a median home, with the costs occuring at a potentially random point in life.

A major reason for this is that when health care is “covered” and is not out of pocket, many people do not question the services appearing on their bills nor the rates charged for those services.

 

[vern_humphrey]

A major reason for this is that when health care is “covered” and is not out of pocket, many people do not question the services appearing on their bills nor the rates charged for those services.

They have no incentive to question the bills. They have no incentive to bargain for better rates. And they have no incentive not to over-consume. How often have you heard someone say, “I might as well go to the doctor. I pay the premiums, don’t I?”

 

[SoCalRC]

A major reason for this is that when health care is “covered” and is not out of pocket, many people do not question the services appearing on their bills nor the rates charged for those services.

Again, the evidence suggests the opposite. Private insurance companies are market driven, but do poorer at cost control and administrative overhead than the single payer universal portion of our system (Medicare), even though that portion takes on the most expensive (health care wise) portion of the population.

Further, we spend more for poorer care for fewer people than virtually any other industrialized nation. So there is little to suggest that it is the absense of market pressures primarily driving our costs.

But more fundementally, it still does not add up. Some people end up needing millions of dollars in medical care. Let’s say that magic pixie dust gets sprinkled on the system and suddenly, the free market is the fantastic performer you wish it to be and costs are cut 5 or even 10 fold - and we pay just a tiny fraction of what the rest of the world pays… That still means that some people are going to need hundreds of thousands of dollars in health care.

It simply isn’t practical for every American to save up $500,000 just in case. That is the whole point of insurance pools. A few people are going to be massively expensive, so everyone pools in just in case it is them. It is like auto insurance. Everyone on the road, no matter how careful, could end up at fault for a horrifically expensive accident. But we don’t expect eveyrone to save up a million bucks just in case. Large groups pay into a pool and spread the risk.

This is why MSA will never be anything but another tax break for people who have insurance and make decent livings. You basically bypass taxes, then use the money for out of pocket expenses you would have through normal medical care. This is also why it is such a darling of folks who really, really, want to make sure that nothing touches the need for private medical insurance.

 

[SoCalRC]

They have no incentive to question the bills. They have no incentive to bargain for better rates. And they have no incentive not to over-consume. How often have you heard someone say, “I might as well go to the doctor. I pay the premiums, don’t I?”

Most people pay co-payments, and it isn’t convenient to take time to go to the doctor. None the less, erroring on the side of doctor visits is actually dramatically cheaper than the opposite. Those who wait until they have to go to, say, the emergency room, are spectacularly expensive.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Most people pay co-payments, and it isn’t convenient to take time to go to the doctor.

Then why do you hear people say, “I might as well go to the doctor. I pay the premiums, don’t I” so often?

The fact is, overconsumption is a major cost inflator in healthcare.

None the less, erroring on the side of doctor visits is actually dramatically cheaper than the opposite. Those who wait until they have to go to, say, the emergency room, are spectacularly expensive.

Nonsense!

Few people put off going to the doctor to the point where their health is seriously impaired.

 

[ucb4ume]

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 think government should be decreased and we should be allowed to use our tax dollars to help who we want to. The government is a soulless entity and I dont like some of the things they do with my tax dollars.I would love to have that extra 60-80% of my tax dollars back just think of the things I can do with it.
We are not supposed to depend on the government to take care of us(SS as an example) they say we are not capable of saving our money so they do it for us? hogwash!

 

[jonhi]

The comparison to auto insurance is laughable, and drives home the point of those opposed to universal coverage for medical insurance. OVER 25% of the drivers in Michigan (we have “no fault” insurance for car drivers) refuse to carry insurance even though state law mandates it. They drive anyway. Since there is no room in our jails for them, the police don’t lock them up unless they actually cause an accident resulting in injury or death, or have a bench warrant out for their arrest. Most (because of poor driving records) cannot afford to pay for their own insurance, but that does not stop them from driving. If every good driver on the road had to pay for these morons insurance, everyones rates would go up, and the morons still wouldn’t drive safely. Universal health care coverage has the same problem- people who make poor personal health decisions should not be able to force the rest of us to shoulder their health care costs, and the least likely candidate for making sure the rest of us don’t have to is the US gov’t.

 

[rlg94086]

The comparison to auto insurance is laughable, and drives home the point of those opposed to universal coverage for medical insurance. OVER 25% of the drivers in Michigan (we have “no fault” insurance for car drivers) refuse to carry insurance even though state law mandates it. They drive anyway. Since there is no room in our jails for them, the police don’t lock them up unless they actually cause an accident resulting in injury or death, or have a bench warrant out for their arrest. Most (because of poor driving records) cannot afford to pay for their own insurance, but that does not stop them from driving. If every good driver on the road had to pay for these morons insurance, everyones rates would go up, and the morons still wouldn’t drive safely. Universal health care coverage has the same problem- people who make poor personal health decisions should not be able to force the rest of us to shoulder their health care costs, and the least likely candidate for making sure the rest of us don’t have to is the US gov’t.

Points well taken. That’s why, at most, I believe in a hybrid plan - preventative and basic care (clinic - type) for everyone, but insurance for major medical. If someone chooses to overeat, not exercise, smoke excessively and/or drink excessively; they should have to pay a higher premium for major medical. There is no reason that people who do everything they can to stay healthy should pay for the care of those who make poor choices.

 

[ribozyme]

There are a variety of sources. there are several studies that indicate paperwork costs about $1,000 per person – every man, woman and child in the country – per year.

sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/11/BUGM8FM8I11.DTL

books.google.com/books?id=Rj_1OSxJeGcC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=paperwork+costs+health+care&source=web&ots=-f954OjlE9&sig=t2UVTJEL2okfZEkoYzeERFTXPto

Your original assertion:

1. Paperwork makes up from one-third (in private health plans) to two-thirds (in government programs) of the total cost of health care. The use of this credit card approach would dramatically reduce the paperwork and result in lower costs

You did not support your assertion about the government paperwork draining 2/3 of its budget for Medicare and Medicare…

I am going to read this for tonight and then write a paper…

brookings.edu/papers/2007/04useconomics_furman.aspx

sayonara.

 

[markomalley]

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!

There is very little written that explicitly covers the topic of health care in of itself. Certainly nothing definitive.

However, there is a lot that is written discussing care for the poor.

First, before I get flamed, I believe it is a Christian obligation to care for the poor…and this includes caring for their physical health as well as their spiritual health. However, the question comes in to how that care is administered: is it administered through the State or is it administered privately with assistance and guidance from the Church?

If it is administered through the State, we run into many, many moral problems. The State can mandate the use of all sorts of unethical therapies: artificial birth control, abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and so on. The State can make decisions based on unChristian bases, using utilitarian criteria that devalue human life. All in the name of promoting the “common good.”

Pope Leo XIII made an incredible number of pronouncements on the danger of the State taking over what the Church and what the people of the Church should do. The classic one is this:

1. Thus, by degrees, came into existence the patrimony which the Church has guarded with religious care as the inheritance of the poor. Nay, in order to spare them the shame of begging, the Church has provided aid for the needy. The common Mother of rich and poor has aroused everywhere the heroism of charity, and has established congregations of religious and many other useful institutions for help and mercy, so that hardly any kind of suffering could exist which was not afforded relief. At the present day many there are who, like the heathen of old, seek to blame and condemn the Church for such eminent charity. They would substitute in its stead a system of relief organized by the State. But no human expedients will ever make up for the devotedness and self sacrifice of Christian charity. Charity, as a virtue, pertains to the Church; for virtue it is not, unless it be drawn from the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ; and whosoever turns his back on the Church cannot be near to Christ.

Rerum Novarum

There are a number of other extracts from Leo XIII, through Pius XI, to John Paul II…all of which reaffirm society’s responsibility, while cautioning against the involvement of the State as the adminstrator of that responsibility.

The trouble with our system is, IMHO, that it is money-driven rather than seen as a holy vocation. Until the latter view is able to take form, no matter what the system, we will continue to have problems.

 

[jabelltulsa]

Universal health care coverage has the same problem- people who make poor personal health decisions should not be able to force the rest of us to shoulder their health care costs, and the least likely candidate for making sure the rest of us don’t have to is the US gov’t.

Excellent point. (we need a rating system here @ CAF )

I still can’t figure out how people think that these massive government projects are going to do well. In my opinion, things need to be handled on a small scale, so that we can monitor them locally. It would be so incredibly hard to re-align or to fix problems in a large federally run organization. Me, as a voter, would have little to no control in these matters. Locally, however, I would be able to enact change and bring problems up easily. It would be prone to mismanagement and corruption, federally speaking.

But, I still don’t think health care is a basic human right (like life, liberty, and property), so it falls outside the scope of what government should do. Government should just keep people from killing me, oppressing me, and taking my property, not telling me how my money should be spent.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Points well taken. That’s why, at most, I believe in a hybrid plan - preventative and basic care (clinic - type) for everyone, but insurance for major medical. If someone chooses to overeat, not exercise, smoke excessively and/or drink excessively; they should have to pay a higher premium for major medical. There is no reason that people who do everything they can to stay healthy should pay for the care of those who make poor choices.

That’s just like you, you eeeevil conservative (or is it “Neo-Con?”)

You want people who are more fortunate – people who inherited skinny genes and who didn’t inherit fat genes, or a tendency to smoke, drink, or use drugs to have an advantage!!

Skinny people who exercise, eat right, don’t smoke, drink or use drugs, have regular checkups and so on, should pay more in order to help the less fortunate. And if they don’t have automobile accidents, they should pay more for their auto insurance, too, to help the people who aren’t fortunate enough to be good drivers.

 

[po18guy]

Concerning universal health care, I have yet to see a single good argument against it. If it is at all a possibility, of course we should have it! What good argument is there against our government taking care of its weakest and poorest?.

“Universal” means only “access”, not “Availability”. We are almost abjectly ignorant of economic principles! Someone pays for every “free lunch”. Look at England and Canada. Both have universal health care. And citizens of both nations flee their homeland to obtain timely medical care elsewhere. Yes, it’s free, if you live long enough to obtain it. Demand will increase exponentially once there is NO concern about paying for it. And, since doctors’ pay is capped under these systems, less and less college graduates will enter the medical field, while more and more doctors will leave the field. It is a recipe for disaster.

It only sounds compassionate. In reality, it places everyone in a position of suffering. Please study some economic theory and examine case studies, before you decide that this system is workable.

And, do not listen to politicians who are lying to buy your vote. Ask YOUR doctor what he/she would do when their pay is cut and care is rationed.

Christ’s peace.

 

[rlg94086]

That’s just like you, you eeeevil conservative (or is it “Neo-Con?”)

You want people who are more fortunate – people who inherited skinny genes and who didn’t inherit fat genes, or a tendency to smoke, drink, or use drugs to have an advantage!!

Skinny people who exercise, eat right, don’t smoke, drink or use drugs, have regular checkups and so on, should pay more in order to help the less fortunate. And if they don’t have automobile accidents, they should pay more for their auto insurance, too, to help the people who aren’t fortunate enough to be good drivers.

Yep! In fact, it would probably be a good idea to round up all the healthy people and make them indentured servants. Certainly, they are fit enough to do the bulk of the work for everyone else. There is no reason that someone who is not healthy should have to endanger their lives by moving and/or lifting anything. Get them all free electric scooters.

 

[cynic]

“Universal” means only “access”, not “Availability”. We are almost abjectly ignorant of economic principles! Someone pays for every “free lunch”.

.

yes because they can afford to pay. People lives matter more than others rights to keep 100% of their incomes.

"

Look at England and Canada. Both have universal health care. And citizens of both nations flee their homeland to obtain timely medical care elsewhere. Yes, it’s free, if you live long enough to obtain it.

.

as opposed to not earning enough to obtain it?

"

And, since doctors’ pay is capped under these systems, less and less college graduates will enter the medical field, while more and more doctors will leave the field. It is a recipe for disaster.

.

Ahh the greed argument. The only reason anybody does anthing is for money. Limit the already high salaries, or simply not keep up with private sector salaries in other countries and doctors will ‘flee’, or give up altogethor and become lawyers.

 

[wabrams]

yes because they can afford to pay. People lives matter more than others rights to keep 100% of their incomes.

So what percentage of your income to you contribute towards a poor persons health insurance premium at this point it time?

Ahh the greed argument. The only reason anybody does anthing is for money. Limit the already high salaries, or simply not keep up with private sector salaries in other countries and doctors will ‘flee’, or give up altogethor and become lawyers.

Would you go into a field where the government mandates your salary cap? You don’t think there should be a financial pay-off to going to school for 13+ years (4 yr bachelor, 4 yr med, 4+ yr residency) and spending over $150k on your education?

 

[cynic]

So what percentage of your income to you contribute towards a poor persons health insurance premium at this point it time?

at the moment I pay 21% inomce tax. I’m not sure how much of that goes to our state funded, public health system, but even if I had private insurance I’d be happy to help fund hip replacements for the elderly, or chemotherapy for the poor. How much are you prepared to pay, and can we guarantee that amount every week? or will it be a one time charity donation that makes little difference in the long term.

Would you go into a field where the government mandates your salary cap? You don’t think there should be a financial pay-off to going to school for 13+ years (4 yr bachelor, 4 yr med, 4+ yr residency) and spending over $150k on your education?

They already get a financial pay-off, they earn well over 100k here. But it’s guess it’s just not enough for the minority who chose the profession primarily for financial rewards. Yes, we should base a whole system on the superficial greed of those who are already paid well.

 

[markomalley]

yes because they can afford to pay. People lives matter more than others rights to keep 100% of their incomes.

as opposed to not earning enough to obtain it?

Ahh the greed argument. The only reason anybody does anthing is for money. Limit the already high salaries, or simply not keep up with private sector salaries in other countries and doctors will ‘flee’, or give up altogethor and become lawyers.

So what percentage of your income to you contribute towards a poor persons health insurance premium at this point it time?

Would you go into a field where the government mandates your salary cap? You don’t think there should be a financial pay-off to going to school for 13+ years (4 yr bachelor, 4 yr med, 4+ yr residency) and spending over $150k on your education?

I don’t argue with it being an obligation to care for the poor. To include health care. But I would like to see a magesterial document that indicates it is the State’s obligation to do so, vice our obligation as Christians to care for our brethren. I really haven’t seen this to be the case, in fact I’ve seen the opposite.

Yet I see people being attacked because they aren’t jumping up and down with joy at having their income garnished.

Voluntary giving imparts a blessing to the giver: a corporal act of mercy. Voluntary giving is what was called out in Scripture. As far as I can see, the magesterial documents call on people to care for one another and for the Church to provide for the poor. Governments taking…in an effort to usurp the obligations that are on each of us…is nothing but larceny. It contributes to a resentment upon those from who the money is stolen and contributes to an entitlement attitude (rather than a meek thankfulness) upon those to whom the government decides to bestow its ill-gotten gains.