G
goofyjim
Guest
Would that also mean Christian centered psychology only or would I have other options? At least with the bureaucrats I have the option of going where I want and am not stuck with one way.
- Status
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
OK, don’t know how we could be more clear on this-
it is not good for people to die when treatment is available simply because they can’t afford it
at the same time, it is also not good to advocate the unethical use of force to achieve an end, even when that end is itself good
Since neither of these options are good, several of us have suggested that we try to look for new options.
It is very telling that you automatically assume that anyone who doesn’t favor UHC must just hate people. Is it so mindboggling to you that some good people in the world honestly believe that government intervention causes more harm than good in almost every instance.
Incidentally, many countries with socialized medicine are the only moving toward the systematic acceptance of causing those in need to “drop dead,” via euthanasia, because it is more economically expedient.
C
cynic
Guest
I don’t know why you’re sideing with these people, since you’re clearly in support of some degree of state subsidy/support for those who cannot pay, which they have described as un-ethical.
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
No, in the context here, utilitarianism is about achieving what the GOVERNMENT would decide is the greatest good for the GOVERNMENT. That is the problem with utilitarianism- there is no right and wrong aside from what the most powerful party arbitrarily decides, based on what is “good” for that party.
“Achieving the greatest good” is a great idea, in principal, until you realize that you’re not the one who gets to decide what “the greatest good” is.
The greatest good for the government could mean that you are euthanized because you’re too expensive for the state to keep alive, for example.
The greatest good, when the government is paying the bill, might mean that they implement rationing of medical services or prescription medications.
The greatest good, when the government has the final say in your health care, might mean that unwed pregnant girls under the age of 18 are given the choice to have the government pay to abort their babies, or the choice to carry to term without any medical care whatsoever.
The greatest good, when the government has the final say, is that your leg gets amputated after a car accident because you can’t choose to pay out of pocket to hire the best surgeon to repair you.
I’m not interested in allowing the government to decide what is in anyone’s greatest good because the possibility is too great that what the government decides is good is not good for me.
Is it really so wrong, in your view, to think people should have the right to decide for themselves what is good and what is not.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
What is “Christian centered psychology?”
And why would you think private charity would not be as open as a one-size-fits-all government program?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
There are a lot of things you don’t know.
G
goofyjim
Guest
Christian centered psychology means they don’t accept alot of modern psychology and as for the charity part I have yet to see someone who will just pay the bills with no stipulations.
S
sodak
Guest
I suppose the next thing you’ll be telling us are stories about free markets and capitalism!!! You radical!!!
E
EphelDuath
Guest
I don’t think socializing something will magically fix it. However, unlike Rothbardians, I don’t think the free-market will magically fix it either.
The fact is that we have the worst health care in the free world because we put too much stock into economic theories that don’t work out as perfectly in real life as they do on paper.
Giving more government control over health care won’t magically make it worse. If that were the case, then we should have some of the best medicine in the world: not France; not Germany; not Canada. It’s not the case.
Telling people to pay for their own health care is equatable to social Darwinism, in my eyes. This is absolutely OK to libertarians, but it’s not to Christians: some people simply cannot afford health care. If you want to help them out, then by your own definition, you’re a “socialist.” UHC-enthusiasts just want to extend that to everybody.
The fact is that we have the worst health care in the free world because we put too much stock into economic theories that don’t work out as perfectly in real life as they do on paper.
Giving more government control over health care won’t magically make it worse. If that were the case, then we should have some of the best medicine in the world: not France; not Germany; not Canada. It’s not the case.
Telling people to pay for their own health care is equatable to social Darwinism, in my eyes. This is absolutely OK to libertarians, but it’s not to Christians: some people simply cannot afford health care. If you want to help them out, then by your own definition, you’re a “socialist.” UHC-enthusiasts just want to extend that to everybody.
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
No, if you want to help other people, then you are a good person.
If you think that helping other people means creating a government bureaucracy that uses coercive force against your fellow human beings to “help them” however you see fit, or force them to “help people” however you demand of them, then you are a socialist.
In a free society, shouldn’t I have the right to not fund or participate in your idea of how to help people?
Why are you so determined to force something on me that I find so morally objectionable and harmful to the common good?
S
sodak
Guest
Prove it. And provide references.
E
EphelDuath
Guest
We’re ALL socialists by that absurd definition. We have public firemen, public education, national defense, public water, and many free clinics – UHC enthusiasts simply want to extend that last one so that everybody can benefit, not the very poorest of the poor.
Really, by suggesting that nationalizing one industry makes you a socialist, then the only people in American history that weren’t socialists were Murray Rothbard and his followers.
Taxes are the price you pay for a free society. If you don’t want to pay for national defense, then live somewhere where you don’t have to. There’s no reason why we cannot extend this to health care.
I don’t know why you find it objectionable. Universal health care is cheaper and better for most people.
But that’s beside the point: many things are “forced” upon you. Taxes are not a violation of your rights unless they are used to fund things like absolute persecution.
E
EphelDuath
Guest
who.int/whr/2000/en/annex01_en.pdf
We spend more than any other country per person, yet our health care is worse than Saudi Arabia’s. UHC will both save money, since it reduces bureaucracy, and be better for the common man. The only people who suffer from this are those that are rich enough to afford the health care they need. Why should people go without medicine – a human right – so the very richest of the rich can benefit?
S
sodak
Guest
I already debunked this one in my earlier thread. This report is wrong.
I would also argue that health care is NOT a “right”. It requires other people to do something, which our basic human rights do NOT require. They require others to leave us alone. Health care is NOT a right.
I would also argue that health care is NOT a “right”. It requires other people to do something, which our basic human rights do NOT require. They require others to leave us alone. Health care is NOT a right.
E
EphelDuath
Guest
Some random libertarian that I do not care about is not a higher authority than the World Health Organization, or basically any organization in the world that surveys health care.
I don’t think it’s a right to let somebody die because they’re poor either.
C
cynic
Guest
The ability to decide for yourself about the sort of care you get is dependent on the money you have (or don’t have), aside from any right to do so. Except for waiting lists, I haven’t heard of any of the extreme examples of healthcare rationing you’ve given in the public sytem of this ‘socialist’ country.
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
The examples you used are not engaged in “universal” federally managed and distributed systems like you propose for healthcare.
Many communities have volunteer fire departments. Many communities don’t compel citizens to pay for, or consequently benefit from, fire control services. Also, the federal government doesn’t control all fire control services in a “universal” fashion throughout the country.
Public water? My in-laws own their own well-as does everyone else in their middle-income neighborhood.
Public education is a socialist endeavor. Always has been- and look at the state of public schools. Hey, maybe after you institute UHC you could follow up with a “NO PATIENT LEFT BEHIND” act. That would be just super.
Free clinics? Again, not universally mandated and operated by the feds. There are many free clinics that operate as outreach from local schools, and are used as an opportunity to train health services students- a free market endeavor.
UHC think that what they are doing is a “benefit” to everyone. But you’re forgetting that many people in the US are happy with their healthcare choices, or are happy to have healthcare choices rather than have the government control their healthcare for them. What you want to do is “benefit” a small portion of society to the detriment of the rest of society.
Why can’t we just help those in need and leave the rest of the country alone???
I am not suggesting that nationalizing private industry is a socialist action.
I am declaring it.
As far as the rest of what you said, I’m going to assume you don’t know what you’re talking about unless you are able to provide a list with the name of every american who has ever existed, the name of the industry they advocated nationalizing, and a primary source to support your claim.
There are currently 300+ million living americans, you can start with them, and them move on to deceased americans from there.
This aspect of this discussion has already been addressed in previous posts. Please find and read them before rehashing an old argument.
In short, if our founding fathers had taken your advice, and simply moved to another country rather than protesting unfair taxation, then we’d all be subjects of the United Kingdom right now.
I know you don’t know why I find it objectionable- you haven’t read the 600+ posts that preceded your participation in this discussion.
The key here is “for most people.” That’s called “utilitarianism” and is contrary to the principles of Catholic Social Teaching.
Oh, well, I guess that having one more thing forced on me is OK then???
Taxes are a violation of my rights when they are used to fund anything that I find morally objectionable. Your criteria for what is morally objectionable might begin at “absolute persecution,” but I set the bar a little higher.
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
The World Health Organization is hardly an unbiased source when it comes to judging the quality and efficiency of heathcare systems. They are a gigantic bureaucracy that wants to encourage a system that will increase the size, budget, and influence of their gigantic bureaucracy.
Asking the WHO to assess and recommend healthcare services is like asking wolves to assess and recommend sheepherding services.
C
CAROLOFTHEBELLS
Guest
No. I think you are misunderstanding a bit.
It is not socialized medicine. It is medical insurance and part of the welfare program, called transitional assistance. Medicaide is a program to help assist people financially with their medical (and sometimes dental) costs. It’s not part of the Public Health Department. It’s part of Human Services or Social Services.
Families, children, and pregnant women (and the state cannot interfer with the decision of the mother to get care, carry to term, whatever) can apply for Medicaide benefits, as well as the blind, disabled, developmentally disabled, aged, mentally ill, some people in nursing homes, and young adults under the age of 22 with low income/property It’s very hard for people who don’t deserve benefits to qualify for benefits. For example, there is no way that I could qualify, although I can’t afford medical insurance and have none, because I have no children, am between the ages of 22 and 65, not disabled, blind, etc. Even if you are in a category that qualifies you must meet all the income and property qualifications (in most cases) AND provide all requested verifications of income/property AND complete all paperwork correctly.
One of the things Medicaide does is augement what low income seniors who are on Medicare have (that’s called Quimby). Seniors and families who are not eligible for full benefits are sometimes eligible for financial assistance, at a share of cost. They receive some benefits and they pay a share, which is like a co-pay.
When someone has Medicaide benefits what they have is a card, like an insurance card, that they take to the doctor or clinic they choose to go to. It’s treated like an insurance when someone gets medical care. If the client has a “share of cost” it shows on the clinic or doctor office computer and they must fork over some money. If they have not visited their carrier worker in the office for their annual re-evalution, if they have moved or if they have a change of phone number and have not reported it to their worker, if they miss an appointment, the worker closes the case. Then when they see a doctor - or take their kids to see a doctor - they end up showing their card and being told, “Sorry, you no longer have benefits.” Then we at the transitional assistance department (commonly known as welfare) get called by the client who is upset because their kid needs treatment right away and they can’t pay. Or maybe they are a parent and they need surgery. All you can say is sorry, we just approve or deny cases and you didn’t play by the rules - but apply again. A vicious cycle.
At this moment, while I am writing this I absolutely cannot believe the heartlessness and idocacy of anyone who would believe that childen or any poor person should not be seen by a doctor because they happen to be poor. What are you people doing now? Eating chips and watching TV in a comfortable house, reading this and then going about boasting how you are better than anyone because you pay taxes and you are a better citizen that anyone else or whatever. Sorry to shake you up but not everyone is well off like some of you. And I think some of the stuff I have read here is just plain sinful pride and that you should be ashamed. I cannot see how anyone who is a Catholic Christian can not believe that poor people deserve health care care without having to jump through hoops.
Let me now address this:
" The reason for putting abortion seekers to the top of the list is because it is viewed as a compassionate practice for the mother and the baby, because they would rather that a woman aborts her child today than have to risk going without prenatal care for any period of time?"
No. Women who want abortions are not put at the “top of the list”. The only people have cases that are systemically worked on first - to get benefits approved (not to be seen by a doctor - Medi-caide offices are not doctor offices) - are PREGNANT WOMEN. There are no “compassionate” practices. Many workers can be compassionate, but it they are not social workers or health care professionals. There are regulations and office procedures. Cases with pregnant women are viewed by the state and county goverments in our state as time sensitive due to the prenatual condition required immediate care for the fetus and the mother. Some women tend not to get prenatal care when they can’t afford it and Medicaide is sometimes the only way they can afford to get prenatual car. Another time sensitive case would be an elderly person in a nursing home. That would go to the front of the file system, as well, to have the paperwork and budget worked on first. I wouldn’t say that time sensitive cases are that way because of compassion. I believe it is if someone is likely to dies or becomes very ill while a pending client waiting for benefits, the state and the county governments can be sued and also are in a whole lot of trouble.
Abortions are not put at the “top of the list”. They just absolutely bump any case that an available worker is working on the moment they walk up to the reception counter and complete the initial form and state they are pregant and seeking benefits in order to have an abortion. Medi-Cal cases can take up to a month and a half to approve and sometimes the deadline can be extended. As it was explained to me, working the case right away would help to avoid a late term abortion. This is why they would call it “top priority”. The lobby reception calls you and tells you that you have just been assigned the case and the client is on their way up. You are already into a case on your desk, have calls to make, and whatever, but all other work is put on hold til you interview that client and work her case with her there.
Working a case is reviewing the application and all of the clients reported and reportable finances (income and property), according to (very complicated and ever changing) governmental regulations. Then checking the state databases to verify income, social security numbers, the ownership of medical insurance.) Entering all data into a budgeting database (some areas still do it manually) and work the budget under many different available programs to see it the client is eligible for benefits. In this area of So. Cal. we are lucky enough to have a really good database that sorts through all the various programs.
Most cases are complicated. Pregnant women were less so. Many of the pregnant women, but certainly not all, that I had as clients who wanted abortions had cases that were easy to work because they were minors. I also had some cases that were minors who were pregnant who wished to carry the baby to term. Whenever I had a case with a possible abortion, I felt very sad and prayed for the client to change her mind when she left. The job was stressful enough, but add one of those cases to my day and I was really having problems sleeping at night. I was glad when I didn’t get promoted and had to stop working there.
Sorry for the super long post.
I guess I’m not going to be checking back here, because it is very upsetting for me. You see, not only do I have a BA in Social Service, but I lost a subsequent job and in turn lost my medical and dental insurance. Actually, I was able to afford to keep up my dental and vision on COBRA for a while. (Which, I suppose, many will also think is a dreaded socialized medicine plan.) I couldn’t afford to pay nearly $350 a month for medical insurance on COBRA or privately. My COBRA dental and vision wasn’t much, but ran out and so is my savings. I would love to see a doctor, since it’s been over a year and a half and I’m in my fifties, but I can’t afford to. I need to replace a lost tooth, but no insurance now. Otherwise, I am (to the best of my knowledge) blessed with good health. I keep believing God will bless me with a good full time job and I keep going after everying I find, even some part time jobs. Hanging in there and keeping the faith. But, I have to say, I consider myself poor. Thank goodness I have family to live with.
I saw some quotes above. Didn’t really read them all. I’ll throw one in. Off the top of my head.
“There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philoshophy.”
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
That’s right.
Under the current US system, peoples’ ability to make choices about their healthcare is limited by their own money.
Under socialized medicine, peoples’ ability to make choices about their healthcare is limited by the government’s use of other peoples’ money.
Sounds like neither of those is ideal.
Then you need to review previous posts.
- Status