Universal Healthcare, Is it scriptural?

[mark_a]

The fact that a majority of Americans buy into the lies of insurance and drug companies baffles me.

No one wants to be sick.

And yes, I would love to put both of the above on a slow boat to China.

 

[vern_humphrey]

What are you picking about here. Is English so obtuse, or is it my use thereof. Perhaps I abbreviated what I meant. As I see it, you want to deny that the state is responsible for providing a government controlled system of wellfare. I was agreeing with that. What I was however insisting, and to my understanding of English, it being plain, is that te government is responsible for ensuring a working wellfare sysyem is in place, and guaranteeing it. How it is physically implemented is not my concern, only that if the private sceme should collapse for any reason, the state will be there as back-stop, to pick up the pieces.

And my point is that the government does the opposite – taking over the health care system, putting burdens on it that make it less efficient.

Examples:

1. By law, emergency rooms must treat all comers, regardless of ability to pay. Sounds good and charitable, no? But who pays? Why the other paying patients! It’s a tax on the sick. And it has led many hospitals to close their emegency rooms.
2. You cannot shop for health insurance across state lines. You can shop for books, snoeshows, automobiles, computers, and so on, but not health insurance. As a result there is less competion in the health insurance industry, and hence higher costs.
3. Non-affiliated small businesses cannot band together and bargain for health insurance for their employees.

I could go on, but you get the picture. Adn recall how our Canadian friends say doctors are leaving Canada and hospitals are closing.

Come on now, let us not be silly. Of course you do not expect the corner clinic to perform major surgery. What you expect to be in place is a facility available to ALL, unconditional on the needer of the service to pay for that service at the time of need.

And financed, how? With what controls?

I once worked for a company that had a wonderful health plan – the company was self-insured and it didn’t cost the employees a penny. If you went to the doctor, he sent the bill to the company and they paid it – all of it.

One employee, a hypocondriac, ruined that. She used more medical services – all optional – than all the other employees combined.

Surely you do not believe that Paul would expect those not so well prepared for such a task, to perform it anyway, to the ruination of themselves, and their children? That would be very unChristian of him…End of part one

Is it just me, or do other people recognize Paul was a saint and an apostle? Because people on this thread sure take shots at him!

I posted what he wrote – it’s clear. Those who cannot pay and who have no family are to receive charity. As for the rest of us, we must live up to our obligations.

 

[vern_humphrey]

To Vern: Part Two:

As I said, we were very fortunate in our circumstances. The greater majority of people, in a situation very little worse than ours, would not have been able to cope.

And we should help people in such circumstances – but I’d feel a lot better if the Church were giving the help. That’s one of the reasons Christ created us!

Too many Catholics act like spectators at a football game – they cheer now and then, and take credit for moving the ball.

I can’t tell what tou are getting at here. You seem to be stuck in a groove. No-one as far as I know is calling for what you call a single payer scheme.

You missed the discussions on the Canadian and British schemes?

The responsibility of the state is not to run the scheme, only to ensure that the scheme is running, and guaranteed by the state. Funding could be by private insurance, or public insurance, or even central funds.

If the state would get out of the way, lift some of its outrageous restrictions, we’d be a lot better off.

With private insurance, there is the problem that some insurers will not handle high risk cases. Mammon is greedy and lacking in mercy.

I never met anyone named Mammon.

So far as I know, all states have provisions for “assigned risks” in health care as they have in automobile insurance.

With public insurance, the line between insurance funding and central funding is commonly missing, but thge pretanse of not using central funds adds a complication to the paperwork.

The paperwork is made essential by the complex tax and insurance laws.

If we would institute meaningful Medical Savings Accounts, we would cut the paperwork enormously – but the proponents of single-payer systems will not allow it.

With central funding from income tax, you achieve the requirement of: ‘From each, according to ability’.

No, you don’t – in fact, some who are very able (like General Motors) get off scott free and have no more responsibility toward their employees.

And you create a monopsony, which is as bad as a monopoly, in health care. Recall the stories about hospitals closing in Canada and doctors leaving?

The proof of the pudding is in the eating – and this one seems to have some sand mixed in it.

Do not make that judgement until you have been through that mill. I wish it upon nobody.

Why boast like that? I don’t see any need to talk about my mother or father’s final illnesses, nor my mother-in-law’s.

If the millionaire is paying his proper millionaire’s income tax, and not bilking the state, then I have no objection to him using the soup kitchen. He might learn humility thereby, or meet someone he might choose to help in a more effective manner.

Might, coulda, woulda, shoulda. Such a system renders us sideliners instead of participants in caring for our families.

You are wearing out your hobby-horse. I have not, and to my knowledge, no-one else has, cried for the dissolution of private wellfare insurance. I/we have raised the objection that private companies tend to dump the more needy cases, leaving them uninsurable when they are in the greates need. But that is the nature of Mammon.
End of Part Two.

Mammon? You seem to be wearing out your hobby horse!

No one has yet shown that the government is better at providing care than the alternatives – and I invite you to look at public schools, medicare-funded nursing homes, and Veterans Administration hospitals and tell me they work better than the alternatives!

 

[vern_humphrey]

To Vern: Part Three:

You clearly did not read or at least you failed to understand this the first time. What is the problem?

You clearly did not read or at least you failed to understand this the first time. What is the problem?

It does not stop him, but as a tax-payer, he has paid for them. so in that sense it stops him from bilking the system.

Riiiiiiight. And the children in the poorest school districts get public schools as good as those in the affluent districts. And the poor hardscrabble farmer gets as much in Agricultural Aid as the multi-millionaire. You bet!!

The best schools, virtually all the Agricultural Aid, and many other benefits go disporportionately to the wealthy. But this time it’s gonna be different.

Yeah, I believe that.

As an aside, we have on our TV a program about a group of millionaires who, under-cover, go into soup-kitchens and welfare-shelters, pretending to be down-and-outs. They befreind the unfortunates, and see how they live. The aim is to find deserving cases for largesse, but not a few of the cases have resulted in Damascus road experiences for the millionaires.

Right – and we have TV programs were people go and live on “desert isles”
Agricultural Aid I agree: it is impossible to keep Mammon out of the system. But that is no reason to hand the system over to Mammon.

But when you turn it over to the government that’s exactly what you do.
Isn’t that where we came it?
Agricultural Aid The state is responsible that provision be made, not for providing, unless no-one-else will provide. But that is the bottom line.

Then let the state prove its sincerity by lifting all the restrictions that keep people from getting quality health care insurance.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Hi Vern,
I think we are not that far apart. This is mainly a cultural matter. Your culture seems to favour unfettered capitalism: Mammon unbound. ours favours binding Mammon into slavery, though I consider, that our culture allows too much freedom to Mammon, and (methinks) that you consider yours allows too little.

Right – and we have TV programs were people go and live on “desert isles”
Agricultural Aid I agree:

it is impossible to keep Mammon out of the system. But that is no reason to hand the system over to Mammon.

But when you turn it over to the government that’s exactly what you do.

So more control is required on government, to prevent government corruption, and overweaning ambition. You, unlike us, have a written constitution, but it is too easily set aside by the executive. Remember McCarthy. Remember Guantanamo.
The following is off-thread… you may ignore it, but it is offered in charity, not in judgement.

{{{ Understand that a foreign military base is, in international law, as much national territory as an embassy, and what happens there is subject to the laws of the nation occupying it. Do you favour your executive setting international law aside? Would you like the rest of the world to tear up their treaties with your nation? Do you want your nation to be feared, or loved. Both have a price. To be loved, you must be prepred to have your benevolence abused, and must not react: turn the other cheek, go also the other mile, give up also your cloak. To be feared, you must also fear, for the enemy will always be at your gate, and no matter how vigilant your guard, he will always find a way in, for you need always to succeed, he needs only to succeed once.}}}

End of off-thread message.

The state is responsible that provision be made, not for providing, unless no-one-else will provide.

But that is the bottom line.
Then let the state prove its sincerity by lifting all the restrictions that keep people from getting quality health care insurance.

What restrictions? restrictions on the opperations of wellfare centers, or restrictions on medicare insurance companies?
My view is more restrictions are needed.
1/ Medicare insurance must not be permitted to refuse cover on any grounds whatsoever, but must in the same mandate, be able to claim off central government, the cost of this limitation, on a case-by-case basis.
2/ Medicare establishments must be required to take any emergency case, and give its best care to that case, regardless to the insurance cover provider, or lack thereof, and likewise, be able to claim the cost thereof from central government on a case by case basis.
3/ If a person has a life threatening condition, that person may be allocated to whichever establishment that can handle the case speedily, provided that this does not interfere with emergency cases, Likewise, any unscheduled cost must be accepted by central government.
4/ A medical establishment poaching staff from abroad must reccompense the donor nations costs for the education thereof, factored for inflation and social cost.

In short, I accept a mixture of private and central insurance, and provision, but the private provisions cannot have free rein, but must be able to claim the cost of this limitation from central resources.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Hi Vern,
I think we are not that far apart. This is mainly a cultural matter. Your culture seems to favour unfettered capitalism: Mammon unbound. ours favours binding Mammon into slavery, though I consider, that our culture allows too much freedom to Mammon, and (methinks) that you consider yours allows too little.

Where do you get this “Mammon” stuff?

When I stand for paying for my own medical care, and that of my family – and helping the poor to boot, that makes me a worshiper of Mammon, while those who say, “Let the government do it,” then roll over on the couch and go back to sleep are morally superior!?!?

So more control is required on government, to prevent government corruption, and overweaning ambition. You, unlike us, have a written constitution, but it is too easily set aside by the executive. Remember McCarthy. Remember Guantanamo.
The following is off-thread… you may ignore it, but it is offered in charity, not in judgement.

You say “more control is required” and then proceed to show that more control is not possible.

What restrictions? restrictions on the opperations of wellfare centers, or restrictions on medicare insurance companies?
My view is more restrictions are needed.
1/ Medicare insurance must not be permitted to refuse cover on any grounds whatsoever, but must in the same mandate, be able to claim off central government, the cost of this limitation, on a case-by-case basis.

So I as a taxpayer must be formally involved in partial birth abortions by paying for them?

2/ Medicare establishments must be required to take any emergency case, and give its best care to that case, regardless to the insurance cover provider, or lack thereof, and likewise, be able to claim the cost thereof from central government on a case by case basis.

And our Catholic hospitals will be forced to perform partial birth abortions?

3/ If a person has a life threatening condition, that person may be allocated to whichever establishment that can handle the case speedily, provided that this does not interfere with emergency cases, Likewise, any unscheduled cost must be accepted by central government.

Which sounds good – but we already have that.

4/ A medical establishment poaching staff from abroad must reccompense the donor nations costs for the education thereof, factored for inflation and social cost.

Poaching? You will not pay the workman his hire, and when he goes where he and his services are respected and valued, that’s poaching?

In short, I accept a mixture of private and central insurance, and provision, but the private provisions cannot have free rein, but must be able to claim the cost of this limitation from central resources.

You’re advocating a system that will drive out doctors (but blame the doctors for going), cause us to become participants in immoral acts, allow us to rationalize failing to do our duty, and generally be less effective than a free system.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Don’t ever mix liberal politics with what is scriptural–that goes for conservative politics, too!

Liberals are for kiling babies and conservatives are for the state killing murderers.

The scripture says “Do not kill”.

Maybe stopping killing should take preference over health care.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Don’t ever mix liberal politics with what is scriptural–that goes for conservative politics, too!

Liberals are for kiling babies and conservatives are for the state killing murderers.

The scripture says “Do not kill”.

Maybe stopping killing should take preference over health care.

Actually, the scripture says “Do not murder.” There are plenty of examples in scripture of both the death penalty and war being considered acceptable and just.

But abortion is never acceptable and never just.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

frankly, I am wondering if Universal Healthcare even works? look at canada for example. One needing an MRI will wait months if not almost a year for one. Many Canadians who can affroad to comes to the US for health care because we have a better system due to captialism. Yes, they are cheaper for drugs I hear. But, what is the quality of their healthcare? Will our healthcare become poor over time with universal healthcare?

 

[vern_humphrey]

frankly, I am wondering if Universal Healthcare even works? look at canada for example. One needing an MRI will wait months if not almost a year for one. Many Canadians who can affroad to comes to the US for health care because we have a better system due to captialism. Yes, they are cheaper for drugs I hear. But, what is the quality of their healthcare? Will our healthcare become poor over time with universal healthcare?

Actually, the cheap drugs from Canada are an illusion. Generic drugs (drugs whose patent has expired) are actually more expensive in Canada because they have killed off competition in their drug industry.

“Name Brand” drugs (drugs still under patent) are cheaper because the Canadians threaten to take the patent and assign it to a Canadian manufacturer if the patent holder will not sell at their price (by claiming it’s essential to life, and paying a pittance in royalty, they are able to pretend this is legal.)

The cost of doing that, is high, though. First of all, it has dramatically cut drug R&D in Canada – and in those European nations that have price controls. The United States now develops about 70% of all new drugs.

Secondly, it throws the whole cost of R&D on the American consumer – hardly a “Christian” act!!

There are several things we can do to get cheaper drugs here without all those bad things happening – for example, there is a subscription website where you can enter your prescriptions and they will tell you if there’s a generic – and you can seach for the lowest prices. You’d be surprised at how often the lowest price is in the US.

Next, there are retailers in the US who are cutting prices on their own – Wal-Mart will sell generics at $4.00. Of course, Senator Scheumer immediatelyt attacked Wal-Mart for this – he sees it as “undercutting” the competition!! (And to blazes with the elderly people who benefit from the lower prices.)

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano View Post
Hi Vern,
I think we are not that far apart. This is mainly a cultural matter. Your culture seems to favour unfettered capitalism: Mammon unbound. ours favours binding Mammon into slavery, though I consider, that our culture allows too much freedom to Mammon, and (methinks) that you consider yours allows too little.

Where do you get this “Mammon” stuff?

Read the Gospel(s) with an open mind, and consider the words of Our Lord, and the context, when he talks of Mammon.

When I stand for paying for my own medical care, and that of my family – and helping the poor to boot, that makes me a worshiper of Mammon,

Of course not. That is a silly misinterpretation of my words, and such a misinterpretation must have taken some effort.

while those who say, “Let the government do it,” then roll over on the couch and go back to sleep are morally superior!?!?

Are you claiming that I said that?
Anyone can go back and check on that one. Come on!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano View Post
So more control is required on government, to prevent government corruption, and overweaning ambition. You, unlike us, have a written constitution, but it is too easily set aside by the executive. Remember McCarthy. Remember Guantanamo.
The following is off-thread… you may ignore it, but it is offered in charity, not in judgement.

You say “more control is required” and then proceed to show that more control is not possible.

I did not say it would be impossible, I implied it might be difficult, but you have a head start on us in these matters. You have ruined two presidents under threat of prosecution in the past 50 years. The last time we did anything like that was in the conclusion of a civil war which made yours look like a pantomime.

End of Part 1

 

[vern_humphrey]

Read the Gospel(s) with an open mind, and consider the words of Our Lord, and the context, when he talks of Mammon.
Of course not. That is a silly misinterpretation of my words, and such a misinterpretation must have taken some effort.
Are you claiming that I said that?
Anyone can go back and check on that one. Come on!

Then why do you keep bringing up Mammon?

If you’re not accusing me of worshiping Mammon (and I don’t see how you could, since I propose following Paul’s teaching and not throwing family members to the tender mercy of the bureaucracy), what’s your point?

I did not say it would be impossible, I implied it might be difficult, but you have a head start on us in these matters.

I never said you said it would be impossible, I said you showed it.

You have ruined two presidents under threat of prosecution in the past 50 years. The last time we did anything like that was in the conclusion of a civil war which made yours look like a pantomime.

End of Part 1

Why on earth should we adopt a system that will plunge us into governmental chaos?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano View Post
What restrictions? restrictions on the opperations of wellfare centers, or restrictions on medicare insurance companies?
My view is more restrictions are needed.
1/ Medicare insurance must not be permitted to refuse cover on any grounds whatsoever, but must in the same mandate, be able to claim off central government, the cost of this limitation, on a case-by-case basis.

So I as a taxpayer must be formally involved in partial birth abortions by paying for them?

Non sequitur: What has medicare insurance got to do with partial birth abortions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano View Post
2/ Medicare establishments must be required to take any emergency case, and give its best care to that case, regardless to the insurance cover provider, or lack thereof, and likewise, be able to claim the cost thereof from central government on a case by case basis.

And our Catholic hospitals will be forced to perform partial birth abortions?

EMERGENCY CASES…how can an abortion be an emergency case?
The only possibility I can see is where a desperate woman has been tended by a back street butcher, and a medical accident has ensued. The emergency is to save the life of this desperate woman, bleeding to death, having been butchered. Would you let her die for her sins? Very Christian! Very Catholic!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano View Post
3/ If a person has a life threatening condition, that person may be allocated to whichever establishment that can handle the case speedily, provided that this does not interfere with emergency cases, Likewise, any unscheduled cost must be accepted by central government.

Which sounds good – but we already have that.

Bingo! one out of four!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano View Post
4/ A medical establishment poaching staff from abroad must reccompense the donor nations costs for the education thereof, factored for inflation and social cost.

Poaching? You will not pay the workman his hire, and when he goes where he and his services are respected and valued, that’s poaching?

Of course it is poaching, and worse, it is stealing. Not just stealing, but the worst kind of stealing: the stealing from the poor by the rich.
And you can support this? Very Christian! Very Catholic!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano View Post
In short, I accept a mixture of private and central insurance, and provision, but the private provisions cannot have free rein, but must be able to claim the cost of this limitation from central resources.

You’re advocating a system that will drive out doctors (but blame the doctors for going), cause us to become participants in immoral acts, allow us to rationalize failing to do our duty, and generally be less effective than a free system.

Vern, you pervert my words beyond recognition. I call only fo a level playing field, but you will only accept a biased field. A biased field will come upon you when China develops her full potential. You want the ecconomy of tigers. Beware tigers which are better tigers than you will come upon you.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Go to England and ask anyone there if UTOPIA has fully happened and if they’re 100% satisfied with their medical system.

Also ask them if that medical system has saved one single soul in the whole country!

 

[cynic]

Call me crazy, but if an illness is life threatening and not self-inflicted, then shouldn’t treatment be a given? I mean what should we as a society say, “you were on an middle income, therefore you should have taken out insurance, therefore we aren’t going to treat you and let your die”?

The answer for wealthy people who want to use a public system is to means test them, possibly after they’ve been treated, so they can pay back the cost of treatment (that could go for anyone). Simple. What this really is about is people with a right-wing free market ideology hijacking the moral high ground (I’m quite aware that people with a socialist outlook try to do this aswell, and it’s equally as odious). Left and right don’t matter when someone’s life is in question. That’s the principle of the public system, nobodies life should end when they could have been treated. Lets face it people die in the U.S because their insurance either didn’t cover the treatment, or the company decided to dispute the claim and they died in the process. ‘Personal responisbility’ dominating the discussion is really about money ie " I don’t want to pay tax for this", worse still when people say public healthcare gets in the way of charity ie lets leave it all up to chance and vague well meaning religiouse beliefs as to whether someone LIVES.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Then why do you keep bringing up Mammon?

She is a convenient and meaningful shorthand for the evils of unfettered capitalism.

If you’re not accusing me of worshiping Mammon (and I don’t see how you could, since I propose following Paul’s teaching and not throwing family members to the tender mercy of the bureaucracy), what’s your point?

You clearly love the tent maker more than you love Our Lord.
You may not worship Mammon, but you are happy to share your bed with her.

I never said you said it would be impossible, I said you showed it.

If you can see a demonstation of impossibility in an implication of difficulty, then your perception is faulty.
Our Lord had something to say about faulty perception, involving surgery and balistics.

Why on earth should we adopt a system that will plunge us into governmental chaos?

Chaos will come upon you if you do not.
If you choose to play the tigers’ game, then you will surely meet a better tiger than you.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Actually, the scripture says “Do not murder.” There are plenty of examples in scripture of both the death penalty and war being considered acceptable and just.

But abortion is never acceptable and never just.

Actually, the scripture ORIGINALLY said: ‘kill not’. Later jewish revisionists altered the text to better match their customs.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Go to England and ask anyone there if UTOPIA has fully happened and if they’re 100% satisfied with their medical system.

Don’t bother going to England, or Scotland, or Wales, or Northern Ireland, or even anywhere in the EU. We are all here on the board. Ask us here!
Of course we are not 100% happy. Nothing is perfect. On the whole I am happy with what the system tries to achieve, and grossly unhappy with how it is commonly judged.
The faulty yard-stick is the biggest cause of the apparent and real problems.

Also ask them if that medical system has saved one single soul in the whole country!

I would guess that many souls have been saved, for chapels are set aside for pastors of any complexion, and troubled patients are encouraged to use their services.
However, that is not the primary concern of the service. That is, saving lives.

 

[Leeta]

Vern’ s arguments seem pretty clear.

But having lived under universal health care in Germany, I can say that it is leads to a dimunition of health care. The lowest common denominator-basic care is covered, but if it isn’t on their list of covered procedures, then you are up a creek.
In Germany, no prenatal vitamins or any vitamins in theraputic quantities can be paid for by the insurance, despite the obvious health benefits to unborn children. Maternal folic acid deficiency has been linked with increased risk of children having Down’s syndrome, spina bifuda and being multiples. None may be imported either and the drug stores don’t even sell them in the quantities needed.
The school medicine is the best in the US. The Germans are weak on the science end. I also was prescribed antibiotics for a viral infection. No tests were made. I ended up with a bad reaction to penicillin.
Also, I think rich people should pay for their own coverage.

In Germany, You had to join the health care coverage and pay a monthly sum based on your income. If you are dirt poor, then you receive other money from the government to pay the co-pays for the visits and the monthly premium. The taxing was according to income. So if you were rich, you did not pay any to the government, at least not directly.

I am against universal health care and I don’t see how it can be justified for the government must pay for everyone’s health care.

Also, folks you need to get over this worshipping of doctors and believing everything they say. The medical schools are financed by drug companies and so doctors ‘cures’ usually consist of drugs, most of the time with bad side effects.
I recommend reading up about alternative medicine and using prevention to head off problems.
I would not wqnt to pay for drug pushers to ply their wares on helpless and clueless folks. It is bad enough that we are paying for abortions, sterilizations and contraception which kill babies and make people sick or even kill them through the government “health care” that we do have.

Now I have a brother who is practically a vagrant and he refuses to go on any government aid program-health or otherwise. But he will accept help from people and churches. Jesus said the “poor you will always have with you”. So there it is. No government program can replace Christian charity. Even in Germany there are street people and others who don’t want the hassle of dealing with government beauracracies and prefer to eek it out on the street and be their own person.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Is the main reason for this thread a discusion of whether the Bible advocates healthcare to the point that the government should provide it

OR

Advocacy of government mandated universal healthcare on “scriptural grounds” to advance a left-wing political agenda?

I will say this: I would die before I would vote for anyone or any party that even though they advocated the most noble healthcare system in the entire world–would also support murdering babies!

People who advocate universal healtcare for everyone I do not have a problem with–people who use the issue to try to win back the votes of Catholics who will not vote for baby murderering political parties–I do!