Why pro-life advocates should favor universal healthcare

[St_Francis]

…

Wow, that was very comprehensive and informative, thank you for putting all that information together.

All in all, I was reminded of Humanae Vitae, where the Pope said, “17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and *a general lowering of moral standards *…”

 

[MidnightSun12]

I don’t think you understand the article. Abortions are not reduced by making condoms, pills and morning after pills more accessible, but by removing the financial strain on pregnant women, who are much more likely to carry their babies to term if they don’t face astronomical health care bills doing so, and can be assured of healthcare for their children after they are born.
It’s true that we need to catechize people correctly and spread the faith, but meanwhile, we can reduce the number of abortions by expanding and improving Medicare.

I guess that I should have quoted the part of the article that I was specifically referring to:

A young woman I knew in Britain added another explanation. “If you’re [sexually] active,” she said, “the way to avoid abortion is to avoid pregnancy. Most of us do that with an IUD or a diaphragm. It means going to the doctor. But that’s easy here, because anybody can go to the doctor free.”

Introducing public healthcare may reduce the number of abortions but it is not a good way to reduce them because it’s doing nothing to put God back in the center of people’s lives (which is the real reason why we have abortion in the first place). Often, this leads to even more immoral activity because when God isn’t at the center of our decisions the devil often presents a solution to fix one problem (such as reducing the stastical number of abortions) that introduces a bunch more others (contraception, consequence-free premarital sex, children raised by the state, single parent families, etc…).

The government can control and manipulate just about anything it wants but that doesn’t make society more moral…if anything it makes things worse because it further abstracts the consequences of sin from people’s lives. At the end of the day, the ends just don’t justify the means…

 

[buffalo]

Universal access vs universal health care.

Universal healthcare violates the Catholic principal of subsidiarity.

 

[epan]

Let’s apply some economic theory here.

One of the purposes of universal healthcare is to allow everyone to more freely access a doctor. Lower the cost, you increase the participation. More patients for the same doctors.

I do not believe that the bill provides a single additional doctor, nurse, technician, hospital or clinic.

Rationing of healthcare must follow. Waiting times will increase.

So, is your solution to the broken healthcare system simply to leave it “as is”? How can we tolerate a system which terminates insurance for people who become disabled and unable to work?

There are some safety nets in place, but not enough to provide medical care for those who really need it, and can’t afford it. Medical bills are the largest cause of personal bankruptcy in the US. This should not be the case.

I don’t think that obamacare is a good solution, though it offers some benefits to consumers. Hopefully, opening up competition between healthcare insurers across regional and state lines will break the monopolistic practices.

Your point is well taken, that we also need to couple broader coverage with an increase in resources. Using more specialists who don’t require the training of an MD, various practitioners, and also moving the burden out of emergency rooms to clinics for itinerant patients would help too.

 

[tm30]

I don’t think you understand the article. Abortions are not reduced by making condoms, pills and morning after pills more accessible, but by removing the financial strain on pregnant women, who are much more likely to carry their babies to term if they don’t face astronomical health care bills doing so, and can be assured of healthcare for their children after they are born.
It’s true that we need to catechize people correctly and spread the faith, but meanwhile, we can reduce the number of abortions by expanding and improving Medicare.

If a person is shallow enough to put financial consideration ahead of carrying their child to term, and you remove the financial consideration, they will simply rationalize it using excuse #2 - INCONVENIENCE.

 

[Listener]

Universal healthcare is good. The sad thing is many secular governments see abortion as healthcare and therefore provide is as part of it. I live in Canada and have been the beneficiary of universal healthcare. Both my kids were delivered via c-section and one of my kids were born with intestinal malrotation that necessitated surgery. In total I spent like 150-200 dollars between those three stays in the hospital. All that money is for the ridiculous parking fees they charge us.

To give a secular argument, I believe abortion is a selective surgery and therefore should not be funded by the government. Since it is a “choice” not a “necessity”.

I am one of the people who is for some kind of universal health care. I think that the system we have here in the USA is unfair because some people simply can’t buy health insurance if they have a pre-existing condition. It also seems to me that universal health care might prevent some abortions. Since you are familiar with the Canadian health care system, maybe you could tell us how you like it. I hear a lot of U.S. citizens say that “the Canadians hate their health care system, and many of them travel to the U.S. for medical services.” I’m not sure I believe that.

I would like to see an opinion directly from a Canadian.

 

[Viki63]

Hopefully, opening up competition between healthcare insurers across regional and state lines will break the monopolistic practices.

Your point is well taken, that we also need to couple broader coverage with an increase in resources. Using more specialists who don’t require the training of an MD, various practitioners, and also moving the burden out of emergency rooms to clinics for itinerant patients would help too.

Epan, you make some good points. But it’s important to remember that the responsibility of the healthcare insurer is to its stakeholders, the bottom line, not to the members who need health care. Their responsibility under law is to make money, not to provide the best healthcare, though their PR departments would have us all think that is their goal.
We also don’t need more specialists, especially not specialists who don’t have MD training – good grief, think of the damage a kidney or pulmonary specialist could do who has only a little medical training in line with his speciality. There’s a reason specialists get paid more than generalists, they need more training, not less.
We need more primary care physicians, more internists, who can discern when to refer to a specialist and when to simply tell people to lose weight, exercise more, or quit drinking so much coffee. We are seeing more nurse practitioners and physicians’ assistants working as primary care practitioners, which is a good thing.

 

[da_nolo]

Here is a well-reasoned article which for me helps resolve the disconnect between my dislike of Obamacare and abortion, and my desire to support universal healthcare for everyone:Universal Healthcare tends to cut the abortion rate..
T.R. Reid states:“Increasing health-care coverage is one of the most powerful tools for reducing the number of abortions – a fact proved by years of experience in other industrialized nations. All the other advanced, free-market democracies provide health-care coverage for everybody. And all of them have lower rates of abortion than does the United States.”

really?

1. there is no logical acceptance to genocide. “oh but you can lower its outcome” a few less today is a few more tomorrow.
2. think about actually how this may happen. in most studies definitions are restricted/limited to meaning one thing. the (morning after) pill is not always considered an abortion, yet it may very well cause an abortion. counting these would be difficult and probably abandoned.

so with above consideration, we must conclude that national health care does not cause in the drop of abortions.

 

[da_nolo]

Epan, you make some good points. But it’s important to remember that the responsibility of the healthcare insurer is to its stakeholders, the bottom line, not to the members who need health care. Their responsibility under law is to make money, not to provide the best healthcare, though their PR departments would have us all think that is their goal.

history shows that w/ more competition w/in an industry, prices usually go down and the quality goes up. how/why? companies compete to be the best. also, when services/products drop in quantity their demand usually increases. this in turn increases costs.

so implement policies to widen bargaining or support easy flow between ensurers (that way punishments nor barriers are in the way of customers moving from company to company).

insurers don’t just get their money from customers, but loaners. we have seen issues in this area for decades really. implement policies that support smart business decisions. such as no bail outs! turn the banking system purely private and allow their failure. also lower or decrease qualifications for to start up.

increasing incentives for non-profit banking organizations may help society as well.

then from the federal reserve - allow ‘small’ loan opportunities to give small families or companies a chance to build their equity and credit. limit services and create strict regulations on installment plans. that way society has a means to enter real world finance, a means to get back into real world finance, and a stronger pull towards real world/free market finance

to help ensure this, customer knowledge is key. instead of implementing policies to undermine the free market by a national service (especially one that is morally corrupt and over all untrustworthy) and thrust new laws unto insurers. a more productive means would require industry reports to a single govt. outfit or non-profit affiliate (such as b.b.b.) so that buyers may actually be aware to their buy. know what goes into certain costs and why.

I tell ya right now, why certain coverages are the way they are - I don’t know. exploring insurers’ websites don’t always get me to the best answers either.

 

[Gwendolen]

Universal healthcare is good. The sad thing is many secular governments see abortion as healthcare and therefore provide is as part of it. I live in Canada and have been the beneficiary of universal healthcare. Both my kids were delivered via c-section and one of my kids were born with intestinal malrotation that necessitated surgery. In total I spent like 150-200 dollars between those three stays in the hospital. All that money is for the ridiculous parking fees they charge us.

To give a secular argument, I believe abortion is a selective surgery and therefore should not be funded by the government. Since it is a “choice” not a “necessity”.

Yep – all of the pro-choicers with the battle cry that they want to keep the government out of their uterus – should not then complain when the government keeps tax dollars out of their uterus as well.

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

This thread has been dormant for a considerable period. With rare exceptions, reviving threads after a protracted period of inactivity is discouraged because:

the issues that spurred them are often no longer "hot" or current topics, explaining why thread activity ceased originally.
posters originally involved in the discussion are sometimes no longer active on the forum and, therefore, unavailable to reply to comments added to the thread.

Our experience suggests that, when a topic merits revival, it is best accomplished by initiating a new thread that draws on recent events and can be posted to contemporaneously. This eliminates the baggage of folks being frustrated by asking and not receiving responses to issues raised in early posts (because the new poster didn’t notice that the post he was responding to was made a long time ago).

Posters are very welcome to open a new thread on the subject or any other topic, as well as to actively participate in the myriad active threads in the fora.

Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed.