The ideal health care system per Catholic Social Doctrine

[markomalley]

Over the past year or so, there have been a number of debates about the various types of health care system. I have been called all sorts of nasty things for not being in favor of Obamacare. I have called those who are in favor of Obamacare “fascists” and called those who are in favor of a Canadian or British type system “socialists.”

What brings this up is a recent discussion by Peter Orszag (director of the Obama OMB) about Independent Payment Advisory Board, which would decide upon appropriate treatments for different conditions and the amounts that doctors should be reimbursed to provide those treatments. One article that discusses that is here and another is here. I don’t want to specifically talk about that, but it is of concern for those whose doctors may prescribe a regimen of treatment that this Board determines to be not cost effective for whatever reason. We have also read in recent days about states losing medicaid funding and other issues that weren’t really discussed earlier.

Regardless of our attitudes toward the benefit of government funded healthcare, I think we can all agree that what we got was not the ideal system. So what is?

Is it possible, on the CAF social justice forum, to have a discussion of how a system that was perfectly in line with Catholic Social Doctrine would look? One that fully supports the dignity of the human person, the common good, the option for the poor, solidarity with our brethren, subsidiarity, and participation.

And so, without regard for an existing system, can we have such a discussion?

 

[Black_Rose]

Over the past year or so, there have been a number of debates about the various types of health care system. I have been called all sorts of nasty things for not being in favor of Obamacare. I have called those who are in favor of Obamacare “fascists” and called those who are in favor of a Canadian or British type system “socialists.”

Do you know the definition of “fascism”? How are the proponents of Obamacare (which itself seems to be a compromise) fascist?

Is it possible, on the CAF social justice forum, to have a discussion of how a system that was perfectly in line with Catholic Social Doctrine would look? One that fully supports the dignity of the human person, the common good, the option for the poor, solidarity with our brethren, subsidiarity, and participation.

And so, without regard for an existing system, can we have such a discussion?

I most certainly do not believe the right to advanced health care is an inherent human right, but one that has to be purchased from years of the accumulation of medical knowledge and research and development using that knowledge. Furthermore, the delivery of health care services require intelligent and conscientious individuals.(I do not believe the right to property is human right either, but one that must be granted by the state.)

Regarding the dignity of the human person and option of the poor, a good minimum standard of health care should be provided to all without the humiliating requirement of means testing.

But these are my simple, superficial thoughts; not a long, detailed treatise on health care.

 

[JRKH]

Read The Gospesl and act accordingly. That would be the most Catholic “health care”.

What is the Greatest commandment(s)? Love.

How are we to treat each others? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

What did the Good Samaritan do? Love.

What are we to seek after? The Kingdom.

No matter the health care set-up, no matter the reimbursements, no matter the treatments, the cures, no matter “whatever”, death will come to all. It will not matter how it comes. What will matter is the condition of our soul when we meet it.

Peace
James

 

[markomalley]

Do you know the definition of “fascism”? How are the proponents of Obamacare (which itself seems to be a compromise) fascist?

Fascism is characterized by a corporatist economy: that is, one where the means of production are generally in private hands, but are strictly controlled by the central government. This legislation provides exactly that: strict central government control on insurers. If you were to take a look in this legislation, you will find that the government will decide what will be covered and what will not be covered (do a search on qualified health benefit plan) and will determine reimbursement structures and levels for providers (sec 2717 of PL 111-148). That sounds pretty much like a dirigisme to me.

In addition, this bill is very authoritarian in nature. Not only does it mandate behavior on the part of employers, it also mandates that individuals sign up for government-approved coverage or pay a fine…the fine to be collected by the IRS. The latter is actually unique in this country’s history. Always before, if you did something deemed to be against the law, you would receive a sanction. Now, if you don’t sign up for a “benefit,” you will receive legal sanction.

Nationalism, the third major component of fascism, is not really a factor with this one way or the other. (Although one could make the case that exclusion of subsidies for illegal aliens qualifies as a “nationalist” measure. – not that I have anything against that part of it)

So, yes, the bill qualifies as a fascist measure.

I most certainly do not believe the right to advanced health care is an inherent human right, but one that has to be purchased from years of the accumulation of medical knowledge and research and development using that knowledge. Furthermore, the delivery of health care services require intelligent and conscientious individuals.(I do not believe the right to property is human right either, but one that must be granted by the state.)

Regarding the dignity of the human person and option of the poor, a good minimum standard of health care should be provided to all without the humiliating requirement of means testing.

But these are my simple, superficial thoughts; not a long, detailed treatise on health care.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut on that.

 

[CPA2]

Dear Friend,

President Obama’s health care bill cut more than a half a trillion dollars from Medicare that will already limit health care choices for Americans, and now President Obama has chosen a radical nominee to manage Medicare and Medicaid who has openly praised health care rationing and the redistribution of wealth.

Dr. Donald Berwick has been nominated by President Obama to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Berwick has stated that “any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional.”

Berwick has also praised England’s government rationing of health care stating “you cap your health care budget, and you make the political and economic choices you need to make to keep affordability within reach.” It is absolutely unconscionable to make health care decisions based on cost and politics instead of a person’s life.

Rest assured that I will strongly oppose the nomination of Dr. Berwick and will continue to fight to repeal ObamaCare.

Sincerely,

David Vitter
U.S. Senator

 

[markbrumbaugh]

An ideal health care system would be to pay as you go. Tax exempt medical savings accounts. Catastrophic health care insurance. Caps on medical malpractice and severe tests for culpability…not just whatever a trial lawyer can conjure up for a sympathetic jury.

If the consumer was directly connected to the decision on what to get and how much each option would cost, the costs would go down, unnecessary treatment and testing would go down. In the event there is a catastrophy, that is what insurance should be for. We don’t have medical insurance here, we have prepaid community medical care. It is not wonder everyone wants more of it for free.

Except it isn’t free and the more the consumer is insulated from the cost, the more demand will go up, with the only end result being rationing.

The idea that everyone should get free prescriptions or free unlimited office visits, or procedures is what has overstimulated the demand and together with legal actions, have increased the costs…to everyone but the direct consumer.

I don’t see medical care any differently than food and shelter.

 

[aspawloski4th]

I don’t see medical care any differently than food and shelter.

That is exactly what is the problem!

 

[choy]

i have experience with two systems

first is the Philippines. it is mostly privatized but there’s also a socialized, government funded side. there’s free clinics and free (or subsidized) hospitals for those who cannot afford. generally those who can afford will not even attempt to go to the public hospitals because for one thing the care in paid hospitals is superior, plus because there are a lot of poor people, public hospitals tend to be overrun.

so there, the problems of that system is already mentioned, overrun public hospitals with generally substandard care. not that because doctors are incompetent, but for a fact i know that new doctors by law should serve 2 years in public hospitals before having a private practice. so most doctors you’ll come across in public hospitals are new and inexperienced.

now, since i’ve moved to Canada, i’ve seen firsthand socialized medicine. just in the last two months, i’ve had my son born via c-section, then shortly after he was diagnosed with intestinal malrotation and was in surgery and stayed in the hospital for 9 days. all i paid for was parking. did i receive substandard care? no. was my son well taken care of? yes. were there shortcuts in care for my son? no. there were extensive tests done to find out what was wrong and whats the best way to fix the problem. also, we were in a baby ward after and i’ve seen how the other babies of various conditions were treated.

so which would i chose and i would say the most catholic? i’d say social medicine. why? seeing that poor people would have access to the same care that everyone does. sure, some people are poor because they’re lazy, but that shouldn’t be the reason we should punish those who are poor because of circumstances they can’t control.

sure, the system is not perfect, and because we’re in a secular society there would be programs that are funded by the government that we as catholics do not agree with, such as abortions, contraceptives, IVF, etc. but again, just because you object to one aspect, do you reject the whole package? if you think about your jobs, is everything about your job or your company in-line with Catholic teachings?