Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« One More Step into the Future of TV | Main | A Short Primer on Fasting »

September 21, 2007

Comments

Dean Steinlage

I thought Michael Moore WAS the nut of the story...

Esau

What Dean said.

Tim J.

Equal misery for all!

Brian Day

...the president of the Canadian Medical Association, Dr. Brian Day...

Disclaimer: the doctor in the article is not me. Though it would be cool to see if we are related somehow.

While I am glad that health care is getting more and more coverage, it is ( or isn't) surprising that all of the discussion is about health insurance rather than affordable health care.

Rather than arguing over who has health insurance, why isn't the discussion about making doctor visits or medications affordable? Moving the costs to a third party (insurance companies or the government) just hides the real costs of medical care and invites individuals and companies to "game the system" to maximize profits (doctors and companies) or minimize money spent (individuals).

Joe

So what is the solution then?

quasimodo

Its a lost fight. Equal misery for all is already well on its way:

My adult daughter has been a patient in a dermatology practice for years - but has not been in recently. She was told that since it had been a while since she had been in, she was now a new patient again and they could see her in 6 months. She is in pain now.

A friend got a letter from his doctor - she (the doctor) is limiting her practice to "serve you better." If my friend wants to remain a patient with that practice, he must pay thousands of dollars every year for the privileged. No service is included for that money - just the privilege of remaining a patient in the practice.

Another adult daughter of mine was accused by the doctor's office of missing an appointment two years ago(one appointment) so she was thrown out of the practice this year when she tried to make an appointment. When my wife politely protested on behalf of my daughter - she too was thrown out. You will have to take my word for it, my wife is always polite.

Combine these kinds of increasingly common practices by the medical community with the abuse people take at the hands of the insurance companies and the public will soon demand socialized medicine. At least we'll all be in the same predictable boat.

Robert

I wonder what the consensus is on the Australian system. We have a two-tiered system of parallel quality public and private care (though private hospitals and practices definitely offer more comfortable facilities, shorter waiting times and ruinous expenses). The major crisis in Australia is a shortage of all health professionals, critically for nurses and severely for doctors.

Rebecca

Has anyone looked at the Australian system? There is free medical care for those that need it but private doctors are also available. It isn't perfect but there isn't the stress on the system that is in Canada or Britain AND you can see a doctor when you desperately need to.

M.Z. Forrest

Unfortunately John Stossel engages in the same tactics as Michael Moore. As a precentage of GDP, the US spends roughly 2x what other 1st world countries spend on medical care. The fact that it is free in those other countries does not appear from a cost stand point to increase incidents of use.

At some point folks are going to have to move beyond thinking there is a debate on whether it is possible to provide quality medical care within a social insurance framework. It is emminantly doable. The question is whether it is desirable. Those are issues of autonomy and cost. Personally I'm closer to the less autonomy and lower cost side of the equation.

Leo

medical care is a limited resource
the question is how and why is it limited? The poor can't choose to spend what they don't have in a privatized system. All societies have to decide their taxation and benefit levels whether that includes socialized medicine or socialized military defence.

Stossel writes as if socialized medicine means that people in the UK are not allowed to buy private medical health care - they can. His example of the dental crisis is because most dentists have opted out of the NHS because they want more money. There are lots of dentists outside the NHS charging fees many find unaffordable.

In the UK only a few free-market fanatics suggest moving to a US style health system. Any party which proposed this in the UK would be committing electoral suicide. The proposition that "the UK National Health Service, despite its faults, is superior to the US system" is one of the few statements which commands near universal support in the UK across the political and social spectrum (regardless of their views on Michael Moore).

TerryC

The problem, in my opinion is that we have made health care about money, not about human dignity. The core of the health care system is the doctor. When people become doctors for economic reasons, i.e. to become rich, or at least economically solvent then practicing medicine becomes about how much money you can make not about how many people you can help. So the problem starts right at the beginning. Medical schools train every student as though they are preparing specialists, and who are expected to engage in medical research. This is not necessary. Add the enormous cost of medical school, which must be borne to a great extent by the student, meaning that once they graduate they must chase the dollar initially to repay their loans. So they get in the habit of chasing the dollar, once their loans are paid off then they have high income and it becomes about the money. And there is the expectation. We expect. as a society for doctors to make big bucks. Meanwhile others, like nurses and technicians are squeezed to work lousy hours at hourly wages, even though many have bachelor or even masters degrees.
Another problem with our system is that for all the complaints of waiting lists in other countries that many of our citizens can't get any care at all. Hospitals must take Emergency room patients, so people who have no insurance go there, because no doctor will see them otherwise. Medicare and Medicaid already limit how much care those who are under those systems can get. So if their sickness is too expensive they get no treatment or poor treatment. Even those with insurance are routinely refused treatment by insurance companies when the treatment is too expensive. Just look at the fiction of the "experimental" treatments using transplants which have been proven treatments for decades, but are not covered by insurance, because they are expensive.
So when someone says that any change to the U.S. medical system will result in waiting lists and the rest what they are really saying in my book is that they are afraid that they will have to wait for treatment, because they don't now. They obviously don't have a non-covered medical problem because then they would feel different.

Amy P.

All I'll say is that I find it rather ironic that the same group of people who march on January 22 with signs that read "keep your laws off my body" have no problem letting the government decide what kind of health care they can/cannot receive.

Mark my words - especially for us NFP Catholics - socialized medicine will destroy our families and our ability to have the children we were meant to have. Contraception will be mandatory, as will abortions when we reach our state-approved quota of children.

I hate to sound pessimistic, but it doesn't take much to come to that conclusion, especially when you hear what liberal environmentalists, human extinction folks, and pro-abortion liberal philosophy in general think is a good idea of "health care".

Chris Meisenzahl

Great story. I have more on the story and many more links on topic here:
http://amateureconblog.blogspot.com/2007/09/single-payer-health-care-is-anything.html
http://amateureconblog.blogspot.com/search/label/healthcare

Foxfier

Amy P- I fear you are right, and pray we never have a chance to find out.

I just find it very ironic that one of the major supporters of socialized medical is a trial lawyer who made his money by suing doctors, thus raising the cost of health care. (And there are a LOT of "I can get rich by suing this guy...." lawsuits.)

Unless we can get rid of the gouging lawsuits, health care will stay expensive.

Oddly, I have pictures to explain why I dislike gov't run health care:
http://sailorette.blogspot.com/2007/07/my-argument-against-universal.html

After six years in the tender care of Federal health care-- and a root canal they never informed me of-- I am very, very skittish about giving politicians control of my health again.

bill912

"It is 'emminantly' doable."

So why hasn't any country come up with a socialized medicine plan that has worked?

Margaret

My fears echo Amy's. I was expecting my first child when Hilary made her big "health care reform" proposal when Bill was in the White House. Given her outlook on the life issues, I was (and am still) afraid that a policy originating from such people will eventually (if not immediately) limit pre-natal care and coverage to two "normal" pregnancies per woman. Handicapped babies, multiples (except perhaps twins) and anyone's third or more child won't be included in coverage. I don't think forced abortions, per se, would be on the horizon, rather that there simply will be no room in the health care system for these categories of children. By default, of course, the vast majority of these would then be aborted...

JoAnna
So why hasn't any country come up with a socialized medicine plan that has worked?

I think the Canadian and Australian health care systems, while not perfect, are much better than what passes for health care in the United States.

Perhaps we should strive for improvement, not perfection.

Barbara

The US has the best health care system in the world. That's why people often come here to get what they can't get elsewhere.

Is it perfect, no. Does it need improvement, yes. But socialized medicine would be a step backwards, not forwards. We need to improve, not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Ian

Home birth with midwives has worked for us for six of our seven kids. I know not everyone can do that but it keeps the government out of our family's business.

Blackadder

The U.S. government already spends more per capita on Medicaid and Medicare than Canada does on its entire system. So I don't see more government health care as a means of limiting health care costs. The fact is that the way many other countries limit health care spending, by rationing care, is not likely to go over very well in the U.S. HMOs tried to ration care during the 1990s, and while they were successful at limiting costs, in so doing they became so hated that they were forced to abandon the process.

The problem with the current system is that there is too much government involvement, not too little. We already have the government paying for nearly half of health care, and the other half is heavily regulated. If people were given more freedom is choosing how to finance medical care, we might be able to keep costs down without turning everything over to Uncle Sam.

Mary

medical care is a limited resource
the question is how and why is it limited?

By the fact that we do not have infinite number of doctors and offices and CAT scans and antibiotics -- etc.

Mary

The way to bring down health care costs in the US is patent enforcement.

If the countries of EU and Canada had to pay the developers of new drugs a just price -- one that factors in the cost of development and the risk of failure in the process -- we wouldn't have to pay it all. And we would have lots more new drugs and medical stuff because people would be willing to invest in the research, knowing they would rewarded.

Chris

Ian, I agree with you. But, a certain amount of it comes down to dollars and cents. My insurance (BCBS of GA) has great natal coverage in a hospital or birthing center - but no coverage whatever for a home birth. So, for the baby we're expecting now, I could pay a midwife $2500 cash. Or, I could pay the hospital about $900 and have the rest covered by my insurance company. If I had the extra bucks for a midwife, I would hire one in a heartbeat.

BillyHW

If the Canadian health care system is so great, why do all our socialist politicians go to the United States for treatment when they find out they've got cancer?

They teach us here from a very early age that we've got the best health care system in the world. In fact, our politicians keep reminding us of that fact (just like the French, German, British, etc. politicians do) over and over and over again.

Except in election years, when every politician is blaming the other guy for the disaster that is our health care system and promising to do a better job than the other guy at fixing all its manifest problems.

In fact just about every election debate here is about who can scream the words "health care" the loudest. Every election. At every level of government: provincial, municipal, federal. Even if that level of government has no jurisdiction over health care, the election debate is about health care.

In fact, we don't have a government so much as we have a national health care service provider, with headquarters in Ottawa.

They make us pay for other people's abortions and sex change operations too. They make us pay for flying people down to the U.S. to get partial birth abortions. They make responsible mothers and fathers stuggling to raise their families under the tremendous tax burden pay for the treatment of homosexuals, prostitutes and intravenous drug users with AIDS. Then they make those mothers and fathers wait months and months for scans when they discover lumps in their breasts or prostates. They make us pay for the treatment of lung cancer patients who've smoked all their lives. In Quebec they make us pay for distributing birth control pills to fourteen year-old girls in the schools.

JoAnna
The US has the best health care system in the world.

If you're lucky enough to be able to afford halfway decent insurance that doesn't fight you at every turn. And if you lose your job, you're screwed. Hell, even with insurance a major medical emergency makes most families resort to bankruptcy because there's only so much insurance will pay for.

Does the U.S. have QUALITY health care? No doubt about it. But affordable? That's a different kettle of fish.

I, too, would love to have a homebirth with a midwife. Unfortunately, we can't afford to pay a homebirth midwife out-of-pocket. My current care provider for this pregnancy is a CNM, however, and I'm glad my insurance does cover her.

Tim J.

"I think the Canadian and Australian health care systems, while not perfect, are much better than what passes for health care in the United States."

Care to quantify that? I mean, exactly what do they do better? Can you provide something besides anecdotal evidence?

bill912

"And if you lose your job, you're screwed..."

Nope. No one is denied healthcare in this country. There are free clinics. Also, hospital emergency rooms are required by law to treat anyone who comes in, regardless of ability to pay.

horatio

When you receive health care in the U.S., it is better than anywhere else. But, how to address those that do not have health insurance is a fair question. If the government isn't the answer - and I always hope it is the last option - how do we address the millions of people (many of whom are children)that do not have health insurance, thus do not have primary care physicians, or regular medical care provided to them? If government isn't the answer, what is? All I've heard is loose talk about financing "options" that doesn't mean much unexplained.

Independent of that, the one area (and only) that the European/Socialist styles of medicine are superior to that of the U.S. is in preventative care. It is almost non-existent here. That is definitely an area that needs improvement.

bill912

Government-run health care, in the great government tradition: Post Office efficiency, Internal Revenue Service compassion, at Pentagon prices.

Erica

Nope. No one is denied healthcare in this country. There are free clinics. Also, hospital emergency rooms are required by law to treat anyone who comes in, regardless of ability to pay.

Neither a "free clinic" nor a visit to an emergency room is proper treatment for serious disease. There are millions of people who are in fact denied proper healthcare.

Foxfier

Bill-- very concisely said; a large part of *why* health care is so expensive is because of the folks who are given emergency treatment, then vanish.

My mom's baby sister worked in a hospital for some twenty years; the stories she tells will make you insanely pissed-- I mean, going to the EMERGENCY ROOM for a cold? And that is in the fairly small town of Lakeview, OR.

I am currently unemployed-- I have health insurance, for emergencies. If I get in a car crash, my car insurance covers it. I've had to hit a doctor once, for a throat infection that had all the signs of being strep. (Ended up being some kind of germ, here's antibiotics, bye bye sickness.)

My folks qualified as "poverty" with one kid-- they have three. They have and had health insurance-- not through the job, ranches aren't exactly known for great health care plans-- plus internet, satellite, two to three cars and my mom while recovering from breast cancer got a knee replacement.
At poverty level.
I suspect that lots of the folks who "just can't afford" insurance need to check their priorities.
(on a note-- my family has NEVER taken public assistance, because we didn't need it.)

Esau

The way to bring down health care costs in the US is patent enforcement.

If the countries of EU and Canada had to pay the developers of new drugs a just price -- one that factors in the cost of development and the risk of failure in the process -- we wouldn't have to pay it all. And we would have lots more new drugs and medical stuff because people would be willing to invest in the research, knowing they would rewarded.


Mary,

Patent enforcement basically concerns infringers. It does not actually dictate the costs charged to folks in various countries.

Most importantly, patent laws and enforcement of those laws depend on the country in question.

The country can dictate these terms and even allow infringers off in order to get cheaper generic drugs made that would be affordable for the people of that country, as had happened in the past in countries like Brazil, I believe.

Yet, even if the patents were enforced in those countries and damages were recovered by the drug company from the suspected infringers, I don't believe this would directly influence the cost of the drug.

David B.

The fact that it [healthcare] is free in those other countries...


AHEM! Nothing (that costs money to make, teach, etc.) in this world is free. You want free, say some prayers.

David B.

Also, with regard to bringing down the cost of medicine: Many drugs that people taketo treat illnesses were first tested on paid volunteers and on animals. That costs a LOT of money. Unless we can get people to be labs rats for free, it'll still cost a LOT. Period.

JoAnna

Tim J. - well, one example is the myth of the so-called Canadian "Waiting List" crisis that is not as dire as those who are anti-universal health care wold have you think. See here (opens as a PDF).

Here in the US, I have to pre-book routine OB-GYN appts. a year in advance. How is that any different?

Bill - sure, people can just go to the ER for care, and they usually don't pay if that's the case. That drives up the costs of health care for those who are insured, which drives up the cost of insurance, which causes fewer employers to offer insurance, which means there are more people who are uninsured. It's a vicious cycle.

dino

What we got here ain't no great shakes. It took three months to see a doctor about a problem the system would not allow (pay) my personal physician take care of. Now they tell me it's turned into cancer, but it'll be "a couple of weeks before an authorization" can be done to have another doc see me, and chances are good that the new doc will speak Farsi better than English.
My son had a hernia, but the doc said it was not serious. I took him to a second "plan" doc who couldn't find what I could see from 10 feet away. Finally a third doctor checked it and my son was rushed off to surgery.
Most of the time the "plans" phones are answered by a machine that starts off by saying, "If this is an emergency, call 9-1-1."

Victoria

I am lucky I live in Australia with our health care system A lack of money doesn't mean than we have to do without medical care. I am poor and am being treated like a princess after my recent minor stroke - for which I was treated free of charge. I have a physiotherapist and an occupational therapist coming to my house and I am being given aids which will help me to live with dignity. I had a malignant melanoma removed in the public hospital system and I am being monitored regularly, all free of charge. I am receiving help with diabetis complications free of charge.

God bless our Australian health care system.

Victoria

I couldn't believe it when a long term unemployed blogger [Domenico Bettelini] said that he had to pay hundreds of dollars for medical care for his baby and himself - that wouldn't happen in Australia; an employed person would be given a health care card which would entitle them to free health care provided that they didn't have tens of thousands of dollars in assets (family home excepted).

BillyHW

for which I was treated free of charge

I think you mean you were treated at the charge of others, don't you?

Foxfier

Billy-- exactly. Someone pays. Apparently, some folks love the idea that it's someone else paying-- or that they can pay *twice* if they want to get good health care.

I've noticed that when things are "free" they are not valued-- by the providers or consumers.

BillyHW

I suspect that lots of the folks who "just can't afford" insurance need to check their priorities.

Has anyone ever done a study on how many people without health insurance have cable or satellite television?

BillyHW

God bless our Australian health care system.

"The procedure is partially rebatable under Medicare, the government-funded public health scheme."

Leo

socialized medicine will destroy our families ... Contraception will be mandatory, as will abortions when we reach our state-approved quota of children. Amy P.
Despite over 50 years of socialized medicine in Western Europe, this has not happened.

I find the OECD country health surveys interesting.
Some highlights from the US summary.

GDP health expenditure: US 15.3%, OECD average 9.0%.

Health spending by government: US 45.1%, OECD average 72.5%.

Physicians per 1000 population: US 2.4, OECD average 3.0

Nurses per 1000 population: US 7.9, OECD average 8.6

Acute care hospital beds per 1000 population: US 2.7, OECD average 3.9

And most shamefully
Infant mortality per 1000 live births: US 6.8, OECD average 5.4, Nordic average 3.2. High infant mortality is one of the standard indicators of poverty.

Despite spending the most on health, the US does not get as much bang for its buck and has below average outcomes on many indicators. Why this inefficiency?

In the US, administrative costs account for 31% of healthcare costs compared with 16.7% in Canada. New England Journal of Medicine This is after free market competition has supposedly driven costs down in the private sector.

A private medical insurance scheme with thousands of different insurers potentially querying the cost of each aspirin, allegedly given, means that each of tens of thousands of hospital and practitioner has to count and document every aspirin. Not to mention invoicing and credit control. This needs an army of bureaucrats in the private sector. I can't imagine a more costly method of health administration.

labrialumn

I fear that the availability of health care will be based upon tables predicting future tax "contributions". Useless eaters probably won't get much. Euthanasia will be universal, Especially where organs are wanted for the nomenklatura. Of course enforced family sizes and so forth. Perhaps you can opt out, but then you'd have few if any rights, and no medical care.

Medicine used to be a ministry of the Church, and that is its proper nature and context, and I call for a return to that

bill, People -are- denied healthcare in this country. I'm in a position to know. Free clinics are only for people who don't even have the ability to get to a job. If you have a vehicle, you do not quality. And vehicles -are- necessary for nearly all of the land surface of this country.

Free clinics only offer some things, NOT the best techniques or long-term results.

Foxfier, um, no.

How many people are aware of their Christian duty to their fellows?


BillyHW, tell me where someone can get health insurance for 59 dollars a month? Or less?

Foxfier

labrialumn -- "Um, no," yourself. You can't count on charity-- especially not when it's not a country-wide thing. You most assuredly can't *demand* charity of others.

For that matter, show me how the government taking money from me to give away is my Christian duty-- I have no choice in the matter. I am not clothing the naked, nor feeding the hungry. And double that goes since I would be paying for abortions with the money taken from me for "health care."

Oh, and *I* have health insurance for about 50 bucks a month. I had a small set up fee and is quarterly.

Please reply without sarcastic openings and with actual arguments; twee doesn't help one's side.

Matt Robare

The problem with health care is that there is NO private system. In the US a host of regulations make it difficult for doctors and hospitals to compete. HMO's and insurance companies operate as cartels and use coercive government power to force people to purchase their services.

If we had socialized health care we would have to pay more taxes and submit to more government power. More to the point, Mises proved in the 1920's that central planning does not work.

So why build a system that will fail?

Mary

Patent enforcement basically concerns infringers. It does not actually dictate the costs charged to folks in various countries.

Most importantly, patent laws and enforcement of those laws depend on the country in question.

The country can dictate these terms and even allow infringers off in order to get cheaper generic drugs made that would be affordable for the people of that country, as had happened in the past in countries like Brazil, I believe.

Exactly, Esau!

Scum.

People work hard to developed new medicines, and the "country in question" -- many of them -- regard this as an entitlement to rip them off, aka "dictate these terms". We Americans would pay much less for medicines if other nations didn't threaten forcible licensing to stiff them on development costs.

LarryD

I like the idea of HSA's - putting aside some money to cover costs, letting it grow in an investment vehicle I would choose, thus being responsible for myself. To me, this seems to be the most sense. I wouldn't be surprised if HilaryCare makes no mention of it.

As far as health care being a right? I don't think so. Right to free speech? Yes. Right to vote? yes. Any right guaranteed by the Constitution? Yes. But when someone's "right" to free health care comes at the expense of someone else losing their "right" to spend the income they earned - that's no longer a right but an entitlement. Like some others here have stated, as Catholics we're obligated to help "the least of our brethren", but paying higher taxes in order to do so isn't altruism.

Robert

I think the litigious nature of our society is a major factor in the costs of healthcare. So much extra administrative overhead is the result of fear of trial lawyers. It also seems that where we have government programs such as Medicaid/Medicare is where the highest incident of fraud and malfeasance occurs. I think that the move toward HSA's will give more control to the consumer over what's being spent and that many superfluous procedures will be omitted when there's a compelling financial reason to do so.

J

Socialized healthcare is a term used to scare folks. Healthcare for everyone is what is being proposed, and I think those who are against the idea would do well to ask themselves if "they are their brothers keeper".

Foxfier

J- socialized healthcare is what has been proposed. You can call it healthcare for all, but it's still socialized.

As has been said several times, a forced virtue is no virture; if you take my money for "good reasons" it is *not* a matter of being my brother's keeper.

bill912

J: As I posted above, NO ONE is denied healthCARE; hospital emergency rooms are REQUIRED by LAW to treat ANYONE who comes in seeking medical care, regardless of ability to pay.

Blackadder

Mary,

I'm not sure I see how patent infringment in other countries drives up the price of drugs here. The price of drugs in this country is determined by how much people are willing to pay for those drugs. Knowing that someone in another country is getting the same drug for less is not going to make me willing to pay more for that drug than I otherwise would have.

Blackadder

Government run healthcare is not healthcare for all. If I need care but can't get it because the government has instituted rationing, then there isn't healtcare for everyone.

Under the current system (which I agree is deeply flawed) the people without health insurance are disproportionately young and healthy. Under a government rationing system, the people who would be denied care would be disproportionately old and sick. Neither system is anywhere close to perfect, but trading in our current partly government run system for an entirely government run system isn't going to help matters.

Martin Tohill

One basic problem with nationalized health care is that it makes medical services seem free. That pushes demand beyond supply. Governments deal with that by limiting what's available.

There remains the essential injustice of the haves vs. the havenots. In a truely Christian world the haves would donate money and the hospitals would donate time and recourses and the havenots would have something. Because this is a fallen world we are obliged by dint of public mandate to take from the haves and give to the havenots. Even if the medical care is less than the best it is better than nothing. To have people dying of Diabetes and high blood pressure simply because they cannot afford basic medication is a sin.

The strongest argument against socialist medicine is, "Where does it stop"? Do we say, "No public paid transplants"?, "No public paid transplants other than cute children"? But this is not an argument against public paid medicine as such but only the question of where does prudent judgment lead us.


J

Bill,
That is a bit deceptive. Hospitals are only required to treat critical illnesses - IOW, if someone is about to die, then the hospital has to treat them. They do NOT treat them for free however. I encourage you to test this out by calling a local hospital and tell them you do not have the ability to pay, but you are experiencing something non-critical, like a herpes outbreak. They will likely tell you that they will treat you, but they will send you a bill for it. Then you are stuck with the question of using hospital care that you know you can't pay (which is called stealing), or simply not being treated until your about to die from it.

Radical Catholic Mom

Yeah, Bill, I can tell by your assertions that you have not been to an ER recently. I have. Guess what? I was NOT treated because I was NOT dying. An "ER" --by definition is an "Emergency Room" --is NOT meant for "Basic" medical care. Since my condition was not life threatening, they sent me home with instructions to see my family doctor who I could not get into see for a MINIMUM of a month. Yeah, I was very ill. Real great. People with chronic conditions--heart disease, diabetes, etc--cannot be helped in an ER. Your system guarantees death for those who cannot afford health care. Real great.

People have assertions about how government run medical programs are. Could you please back it up with real life examples? Because the majority of the world has Gov run health services and they are not dying out that I can see. It is interesting to me how Americans think Gov run health= dire consequences and yet all those who live under the system in the rest of the world are thankful for it. Talk about disconnect.

BillyHW

and yet all those who live under the system in the rest of the world are thankful for it.

This is totally and utterly false.

Leo

Government run healthcare is not healthcare for all. If I need care but can't get it because the government has instituted rationing, then there isn't healtcare for everyone.

The argument that if a government rations healthcare it reduces choice is misleading. Healthcare is rationed in the UK NHS in various ways, but there is no UK law preventing anyone from buying private healthcare - if they have the money. If you don't have the money - you don't have the freedom, but that's even more true in the US.

In the UK's socialized system, citizens have a vested interested in the NHS. Hence the public debate over how much to spend on what and how much to tax. Although health expenditure could be infinite, the immediate restriction in a socialized system is how much tax people are prepared to pay. In the US an unwillingness or inability to spend one's own money on health or health insurance is another form of personal rationing.

A properly funded socialized system ensures a minimum standard for everyone, and those who can afford it, have the freedom to do what they like - as always.

SDG

Because the majority of the world has Gov run health services and they are not dying out that I can see.

Well, now hold the phone a moment. Obviously, people die every day in every country in the world. Moreover, people die every day who could have been treated and saved.

It also seems to me that people die in every country who could have been treated and saved under other systems than the one in place. Some people undoubtedly die in the US for lack of healthcare that they could have got for free in other countries -- after waiting in a queue. Other people, as the story linked above show, die in other countries waiting for emergency healthcare that they could have gotten immediately in the US.

I don't think the answer to what is the best possible (or best existing) healthcare system is something that can be decided in the abstract, or by anecdotal evidence. There are so many factors to adjust for that an apples-to-apples comparison of US to Canada or UK or Australia would take some doing.

. It is interesting to me how Americans think Gov run health= dire consequences and yet all those who live under the system in the rest of the world are thankful for it.

Well, like I said, there are always dire consequences, as the story linked above illustrates. It's just a question of what tends to have more dire consequences, and how often, and how dire, etc.

Since my condition was not life threatening, they sent me home with instructions to see my family doctor who I could not get into see for a MINIMUM of a month. Yeah, I was very ill. Real great.

You couldn't make a sick-visit appointment with your primary care physician for a month? I know general physicians are commonly booked a month or more in advance, but I thought it was pretty common practice to keep slots open for last-minute sick-visit appointments. I don't think we've ever had any trouble getting a same-day or next-day sick visit appointment. Of course, you know what anecdotal evidence proves.

Blackadder

Here are some examples:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/05/crisis_in_socialized_british_m.html

http://sicko.ncpa.org/?c=Testimonials

http://onthefencefilms.com/blog/index.php?p=172

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/health/pd021000a.html

Blackadder

They say that a picture is worth a thousand words. If so, then this should be worth a million:

http://www.sickandsickermovie.com/index.html

The idea politicians thought rising health care costs were due to there being too many doctors is particularly baffling, though sadly all too typical of government economic thinking.

Steph

I personally do not want the goverment messing with health care or my health. I would prefer if the goverment steped out of Medicare/Medicade and all other benefits Sociall Security etc...

Why because I don't like how the goverment runs things so why should I want them to run my life.

I do not want to pay money that the goverment decides how other people are going to use. I would rather give money to people and have them spend it were they need it most.

Also if the goverment steped out of the health care business prices would drop.

I don't know about you but I want to truly be free and not have the goverment run my life.

matt

Because this is a fallen world we are obliged by dint of public mandate to take from the haves and give to the havenots

Is that Scripture? Is that Catholic teaching? Sounds more like Marxism to me. The bible doesn't say anything like this Robin Hood theory.

The fact of the matter is that part of the reason US health care is the best in the world is because it's a free market where there is motivation to research and develop new and better treatments. Even though there are disparities of access, the system does work better than elsewhere. The proof is in the pudding, cancer survival rates are far higher in the US than in Canada or any of the European systems.

Many people lack health insurance because they have other priorities or lack the motivation to work hard enough to be able to afford it.

There is much need for reform in the US medical system, tort reform, and insurance reform, neither of those call for socialized medicine. Reducing the cost of malpractice insurance, and having the individual pay for their own insurance will cause a significant reduction in the overall cost. Why? Because if you have to pay for something you will look after it, if it's an entitlement from the government or your employer it is likely to be wasted.

God Bless,

Matt

Erica

Many people lack health insurance because they have other priorities or lack the motivation to work hard enough to be able to afford it.

And there are many who have health insurance who do not work and instead sit and watch TV all day. And there are many who work 12 hours a day and have no health insurance.

matt

Erica,

sorry I don't get your point... My point is that further entitlements do nothing to solve the problem, it only takes even more money from those who do work hard and provide for their families.

God Bless,

Matt

Daniel

I work for a government agency that provides healthcare to the underserved. For all intents and purposes, it is one of the few examples of government-run, "socialized" medicine here in the United States. I believe we provider decent healthcare, however it is by far efficient or cost effective. Despite what many believe, having the government run healthcare is not a panacea - not by a long shot. If you are concerned that your private health care plan limits your options, I promise you the government will do the same. At least in private healthcare one has some method of appeal.
My experience from government service has taught me that private enterprise is typically more flexible, more dynamic and more efficient than that which is found in the realms of government. The fact is that healthcare will always be expensive, regardless of whom the payer is. (And, by the way, WE are all the true payers of healthcare in any model). A few points to ponder:
-Who do you feel more comfortable allocating resources: the government (think about your last stop to the Department of Motor Vehicles) or a private firm. At the end of the day, someone, somewhere, is going to limit your options.
-The government is, already, the largest purchaser of healthcare in the United States. Of all of our federal tax dollars, quite a large percentage goes to the Dept of Health and Human Services. So the US government is ALREADY in the healthcare business. Think about Medicaid and Medicare. Do you really think these programs are that well run? Is it wise to believe a socialized, government-run, health care model will really solve our health care crisis if this same government regulates health care so poorly in the present?
-People don’t value what they view as being free. Socialized medicine will not be free; we will pay for by much higher taxes. However many will not feel the price of healthcare directly and this ultimately leads to abuse. People will be access the healthcare system of minor and trivial matters, therefore driving up the cost of healthcare. Don’t buy this argument? I wish I could bring you to work. People wait in line for hours to see a doctor for headaches, minor lacerations and other trivial matters. Why do they do this? Because for generations (that’s right generations) they have learned that if anything is wrong with you, no matter how trivial, you need to see a physician. It has destroyed their independence. Worst of all it bogs-down the healthcare system and leads to stricter allocation of benefits.
-Government-run socialized medicine will be extremely expensive. Why? For a few reasons. First there’s no competition and therefore little incentive for cost control. When there is no pressure to control costs – costs go wild. Again we return to the if-its-free-spend-it phenomenon. Second from my experience, few government servants ever consider the tax-payer cost when they pursue their work. The end result is waste. Pure and simple. Third, government programs tend to grow larger and less productive in time.

Needless to say I do not advocate socialized medicine. Our current healthcare system is far from ideal, but getting the government involved will only make this worse.

Erica

it only takes even more money from those who do work hard and provide for their families.

1) To claim it "only" does this or that is a lie.
2) There are millions of people who work just as hard or harder than you, but they don't have insurance. Every family needs to be provided for.

David B.

I don't think we've ever had any trouble getting a same-day or next-day sick visit appointment. Of course, you know what anecdotal evidence proves.

This has been my exerience as well. A doctor I can go to concerning non-emergency troubles that I still need treated soon, usually can treat me within hours of my calling.

David B.

And there are many who have health insurance who do not work and instead sit and watch TV all day. And there are many who work 12 hours a day and have no health insurance.

But socialized medicine is not the answer. Many charitable organizations can (or should) help those who need H insurance. There is a reason that the punchline to the joke is "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

Erica

It is "an" answer. Whether that answer satisfies you, or whomever, is another matter.

David B.

It is not an answert, either. The more people hand the government control over the basic elements of their lives, the less they can decide for themselves. Also, socialized medicine is at odd with the principle of subsidiary. The following covers this :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity

SDG

Every family needs to be provided for.

Why, B'Erica, that sounds suspiciously like a conviction. Keep talking like that, and somebody might think that you believe something.

Blackadder

Who are the uninsured:

http://www.freemarketcure.com/uninsuredinamerica.php

Erica

It is not an answert, either. The more people hand the government control over the basic elements of their lives, the less they can decide for themselves.

It IS "an" answer. Some people will be satisfied with that. For them, it's an acceptable answer. For others, it isn't. No answer will please everyone.

that sounds suspiciously like a conviction

Or rhetoric.

SDG

Or rhetoric.

Oh, you know me, B'Erica, I'm not one to jump to conclusions. I just said "sounds suspiciously like."

Randolph Carter

Personally I've always found it odd that leftists don't want the government to provide free healthcare to only those who can't afford it, but also to those who afford it, as well. While the former position -- the government providing health insurance to the disadvantaged -- is, I think, a defensible position that can stem from true charity of the heart, the latter position -- the government offering "free" healthcare to everyone, even those who can afford to pay for it themselves (as, in fact, most Americans can) -- seems to stem from a desire to increase state power; because the government would not only be providing health insurance to all Americans, but it would gain control over the entire medical industry, in fact if not necessarily in word.

Advocates for socialised medicine do not merely wish to aide the sick and the dying and help them to stave off, for a time, that looming spectre of death that overshadows this mortal world. No, these Marxist hope to use socialised health care to bring about their ideal utopia; a world where the noble institution of the state elevates the world up from the cruel barbarism and savagery of the past, ushers it along the magical rainbow bridge of progress in a golden chariot pulled by a multi-ethnic ensemble of horses (white, black, and brown), and into the distant event-horizon of that remarkable singularity that will bring about Glorious People's Advisory Committee Republic of America -- a paradise replete with holo-decks, phasers, warp-drives, Vulcans, and all those other wonderful things that, as Gene Roddenberry has assured us, are sure to be the product of a centralised government that controls every aspect of the lives of its citizens.

Marxists, in other words, believe that the correct application of their ideology can bring about a sort of man-made Heaven-on-Earth. Which is exactly why they don't merely wish to provide health insurance to those who can't afford it, but also to those who can -- thus depriving them, essentially, of the ability to provide for themselves. They also seem to be willing to ignore every flaw and fault that such socialised healthcare systems suffer from, either dismissing them as being fabrications drudged up by evil (evil, I say *EVIL*) baby-eating right-wing gold-mongering capitalist right-winger scum, or hand-waving them away saying things like "Well, maybe people in my country have to wait a week to get treatment for a gunshot wound to the forehead, BUT AT LEAST THEY GET TREATED!" (And yes, I am being hyperbolic in regards to the waiting "a week" to treat a gunshot wound; please, do not nitpick about such things).

Now, as someone who does, in fact, receive government assistance in regards to healthcare, I can tell you that it is far from an ideal situation. The government is, as a rule, stingy with its money, and would just as well not spend a dime treating any patient it doesn't have to -- and where the government is not stingy, it is wasteful. Vast sums of dollars are eaten up every year paying outrageously large salaries to government bureaucrats, financing government comities, and promoting leftist social programs designed to encourage chaos, ethnic tension, and immorality amongst the general populace. Money is also given to people who have no business receiving it; Social Security will send retirement money to old middle-class men who can support themselves well enough; government money has been paid out to mentally ill persons suffering from Gender Identity Disorder, so that they can mutilate their genitals, distorting them into a cruel parody of the procreative organs of the opposite sex.

The fact is that there is already more than enough money in the government to provide healthcare to most everyone who can't afford it -- but that money is squandered terrible. The answer to problem of people lacking healthcare is not to expand the monstrous system any further, but rather to streamline it, make it more efficient and accountable with its money, so that we all know where it is being spent and what it is being spent on. It would also be beneficial to investigate the root causes of rising healthcare costs, and combat the problem there, where it has its origin.

Frankly, I tire of hearing the praises sung of jolly ol' socialist Europe, especially when they are done at the expense of America, one of the only Nations in the developed world that hasn't flown completely over the cuckoo's nest (well, parts of America, at least -- but our Union is really too big to be called one country). Personally I take a dubious honour living in a country where the biggest problem afflicting poor people is not that they are starving to death, but rather the fact that they are all morbidly obese. Perhaps some would much rather that the government enforce mandatory health-food plans for all the country's fat; I would personally want them to learn some self-control; but either way one cannot deny that our country is one of the richest in the world, and I would much rather be a poor man in America than a poor man in Britain, or Canada, or the Netherlands (which makes sense since I am a bit of a poor man in America). As for you Marxists, I am all in favour of you moving along to bonnie ol' Canada any day of the week -- I even happen to think that the government should pay for your transportation costs to go out there, so long as you promise never to come back. Me, myself, I will go on being an American.

JoAnna

Catholic Social Justice teaching states:

Human dignity can be protected and a healthy community can be achieved only if human rights are protected and responsibilities are met. Every person has a fundamental right to life and a right to those things required for human decency – starting with food, shelter and clothing, employment, health care, and education. Corresponding to these rights are duties and responsibilities -- to one another, to our families, and to the larger society.

As Catholics, shouldn't we work towards this end? How does our current health care system guarantee health care for all persons?

Bolding mine.

skyhawk
Frankly, I tire of hearing the praises sung of jolly ol' socialist Europe, especially when they are done at the expense of America, one of the only Nations in the developed world that hasn't flown completely over the cuckoo's nest (well, parts of America, at least -- but our Union is really too big to be called one country). Personally I take a dubious honour living in a country where the biggest problem afflicting poor people is not that they are starving to death, but rather the fact that they are all morbidly obese. Perhaps some would much rather that the government enforce mandatory health-food plans for all the country's fat; I would personally want them to learn some self-control; but either way one cannot deny that our country is one of the richest in the world, and I would much rather be a poor man in America than a poor man in Britain, or Canada, or the Netherlands (which makes sense since I am a bit of a poor man in America). As for you Marxists, I am all in favour of you moving along to bonnie ol' Canada any day of the week -- I even happen to think that the government should pay for your transportation costs to go out there, so long as you promise never to come back. Me, myself, I will go on being an American.

That's says it all... No wonder people abroad think Americans are rude and self righteous... Luckily most of them don't have that kind of attitude. On top of that it's unfair because a lot of the people that argue for socialized medicine (whether it's actually good or bad) aren't Marxists, at least the small sample that we have on this board aren't, so I don't know what you're talking about.

You can defend the US Healthcare system without having to make silly posts like that.

Foxfier

Erica-- given that you have no information on how hard Matt works, you might want to get *actual information* to back up your accusations.

Tim J.

The problem, Joanna, is that I see beyond the stated desire for "guaranteed decent health care for all" a desire for guaranteed EQUAL health care for all, which is impossible. It is the kind of blind benevolent ideology that is especially toxic, resulting eventually in absurdity or tyranny.

A certain level of BASIC health care? Absolutely. We already HAVE that. Though the level of care doesn't satisfy everyone (and maybe it shouldn't), we do have a level of basic care that everyone can get. If I know Americans, though, once it becomes a gub'ment operation there will be constant demands to know WHY some people (the wealthy) should get great care while others get only moderately passable care. It will be derided as unfair and unacceptable. There will be human interest stories to that effect on the nightly news. The government will be portrayed as cold hearted and miserly because the indigent can't get twice-yearly full body diagnostic MRI scans, or some such.

Here's the thing; The rich have ALWAYS been able to afford more and better and faster EVERYTHING. That includes health care. Once the government takes over, there will be constant pressure, not to achieve an adequate level of basic care, but to achieve PARITY. The solution will be an ever increasing "health tax" on "the rich".

If we can live with a certain level of basic care that is just that, *basic*, then no problem. But once the ball gets rolling I don't see us living with that, at all.

Yes, we should work toward better health care for all, but not by placing it under the auspices of the folks who brought us the $5000 toilet seat.

Erica

Erica-- given that you have no information on how hard Matt works, you might want to get *actual information* to back up your accusations.

Foxfier, I have more than sufficient information to stand by my statement.

Foxfier

Erica -- really. Do you work with him? Are you his boss? Do you even KNOW Matt in person?

Randolph Carter

a lot of the people that argue for socialized medicine (whether it's actually good or bad) aren't Marxists

Well, I used to be the sort of person who would argue in favour of socialised medicine. I used to argue in favour of lots of vast and impracticable government programs that I thought would make the world a better place.

I was also entirely ignorant of the way the world worked at the time and, even if I didn't think of myself as a Marxist then, I would certainly describe my former self as a Marxist now. That I happened to use Christian arguments to defend Marxist positions was irrelevant; at my core I was a socialist, the sort who honestly believed that the state could solve most of the world's problems, bring about an end to (or at least greatly reducing) social ills (poverty, sickness, homelessness, injustice, crime, et cetera) throughout the world.

Time and experience, however, dissolved my naivete. I came to realise not only that a socialised healthcare system would be bizarre and impracticable, but that most of the arguments being put forward in favour of one by me and by others arose as much from a sense of self-superiority as they did from a desire to help other. I see the same arguments being put forward by Marxists all the time. Whether or not they choose to define themselves as Marxists is irrelevant; I judge ideologies not by their outward appearances, but by their inward mechanisations; and as far as anything goes, it would seem that all we moderns have a little bit of Marx in us.

That's says it all... No wonder people abroad think Americans are rude and self righteous... Luckily most of them don't have that kind of attitude.

I personally find it rude when people of other nationalities criticise my own country's healthcare system as being bad, when theirs is also far from perfect. I find it self-righteous when Europeans go around trashing America (though it would seem to be a rather vocal minority of Europeans that do so -- the average European seems to harbour about as much hatred for America as the average American gives to Antarctica.) Most of all I find it contemptible that people can honestly go around saying things like: "No wonder people abroad think Americans are rude and self righteous" or some such rot, and still expect to be taken seriously as adults. I really do find this tired old cliché laughable. Do you really think I care what a bunch of left-wing European communists think of me and my country? No more than I care what American leftists (those paragons of baby-murdering liberty) happen to think of me. I would like to be able to say that I only care what the Almighty thinks of me, but I fear I am far too vain for that; but suffice to say that if you want to think me rude, and self-righteous, and a disgrace to my country -- well, you are probably right. I am a rather horrid person. But make no mistake, that in regards to your opinion of me, I really don't care, and if you think me rude, the feeling is mutual.

Christopher Sarsfield

It is funny how the "conservatives" just parrot the responses of liberal economic journals. First with regard to emergency rooms. I would recommend you go to one. The sign states that they will stabilize you regardless of your ability to pay. Stabilization (so you do not die in the next day) is not the same as treatment. It is silliness to believe that everyone in Canada comes to America to be treated and that Canadians hate their system. This again is ridiculous. I know many people that travel to Canada from the US for health care. Why? because it is cheaper, and they do not have insurance. You can look at polls, and they clearly show that Canadians like their health care system. You may say they are stupid for liking their system, but you can say they do not like it. Finally, you can not universalize the American experience. In America most things that are "free" are abused, because America is so individualist. However, in countries that value the common good this is not the case. For example in Ireland college education is paid by the government. This program would be disastrous in the States. But in Ireland, it has increased competition for the available spots and the education system is better for it. Finally, I am reminded that Chesterton said that if it came between the government running something and a corporate entity running something he would be forced to reluctantly pick the government, because they at least have some accountability to the people. The American health care system is run by the insurance companies and they decide what care will be given (not the person). So I would pick the government over the insurance companies. Unfortunately, until America changes its value system and starts recognizing the common good as a value, nothing will change.

PS someone quoted the Church saying that healthcare was a right, I am waiting for some disciple of Mises to tell us how the social teachings of the Church are just warmed over socialism.

Tim J.

Someone above mentioned that basic healthcare for the poor was traditionally one of the works of the Church. You know, the same Church that invented the hospital.

If the Church were still doing this we would not be looking at a choice between the stupid government and the evil corporations as the providers of our health care.

This should be a major Catholic priority... oragnized, active and funded from the pews. But given that most Catholics won't do more than toss the equivalent of a restaurant tip into the offering plate, we are left to the tender mercies of man-made institutions.

If you look at the resources available to Catholics in the developed West, I believe we will be accountable before God for the ways in which we have squandered our wealth. Perhaps that judgment has already begun.

Finally, I am reminded that Chesterton said that if it came between the government running something and a corporate entity running something he would be forced to reluctantly pick the government, because they at least have some accountability to the people.

Funny, I'd reluctantly pick the corporate entity since they at least have the government to keep them in check. The government will never keep itself in check.

Radical Catholic Mom

So, Tim, the reality is the Church isn't so the question becomes what do we do given the options available now?

Am I the only the one who finds Randolph Carter ironic? He receives Government health care and shows his ingratitude by wanting to deny the SAME service HE receives to others. I believe Jesus tells a parable very similar about the guy whose debts are forgiven and yet he refuses to forgive his servant's debts.

Randolph, I am glad that you are receiving health care, EVEN if it is not perfect. You still don't have to pay the FULL price of the very services you are receiving.

Tim J.

"So, Tim, the reality is the Church isn't so the question becomes what do we do given the options available now? "

Pardon me, but I think this is a cop-out. The Church SHOULD be doing this. We should not concede that government or corporations are the only two options. That's like asking if I prefer vinegar or ketchup in my coffee.

I will say that, at least in America, health care would go from bad to worse under the government, but people would tolerate it the way they tolerate lots of things. They would use it and complain, or not use it and complain. We would end up with the health care situation improving not at all, on balance, but paying more for it. But that would all be okay, see, because the increase in costs would come out of our paychecks invisibly every month, just as the exhorbitant costs for state education do now, and we will roll over and pay. We'll grumble, but we'll pay. Until the whole system collapses.

materfamilias

As for me, I'm not sure where I come down on this issue. I can see from the above posts there are good arguments on both sides. I am concerned, however, by the repeated assertions that *free* medical care is available to all who really need it, either in the ER or free clinics.

For an example, America has a ridiculously high natal mortality rate. I work with a section of the population that sometimes cannot get to prenatal care because in many cases they don't have transportation or their work hours don't allow them to go during clinic hours. So they end up having their babies in the ER and there can be mortal complications. Also we've forgotten to mention dental care. I have kids in my class whose teeth are rotted out who can't afford a dentist. True, their dental hygiene is almost non-existent (It's my job to try and fix that, but dental floss is not usually on the shoping list.) and they eat a lot of junk food. Have you ever noticed that junk food is cheaper than healthy food? (My co-workers call the Whole Food store "Whole Paycheck".) There isn't a supermarket in their neighborhood, but there is a Mc Donald's. I can understand that making the extra trip to the supermarket at the end of a long day is sometimes more than an over-worked over-tired parent can manage. At least my students get one decent, healthy meal per day, and yes, it is subsidized by the government.

Sorry if I've gone off topic. As I said, I'm trying to work out what I think on this issue. I also have an adult daughter who is uninsured, and we're trying to take care of a chronic medical condition on my teacher's salery. It's a little scarey, and we will probably have to rely on government help. But something no one has mentioned is that when she gets the proper care she will be a more productive member of society, paying taxes into the system that helped her when she needed it. Just a thought.

Those who can't pay deserve to die. Why should they be allowed to steal our money to maintain their non-productive lives? That's nothing more than simple, unabashed thievery. Those who would benefit from socialized medicine are no different than any tramp, pickpocket, or street rat.

Tim J.

Don't feed the troll.

matt

Foxfier,

thank you for your charitable defense, I will say no more about Erica's presumptuousness.

The US Constitution recognizes as does the Catholic Church, that human rights come from God and not from the state. To say that every person has a right to health care does not say that the state is thus obligated to provide that health care, and under the CATHOLIC principal of subsidiarity it ought not be the first recourse for health care or the funding to provide it. That's the essence of providing mandatory care in ER's, it's the last resort. If a person needs health care, just as if they need food, they ought work for it. If in there labors they are unable to afford it, their family ought to assist, then their parish, and other voluntary organizations. If that does not fulfil the need then it is for the government to step in as a last resort. By enforcing a single payer or socialized medical system, the entire system of subsidiarity is eliminated, and the result is more dependance on the state by EVERYONE.

The free market with just controls is very good at finding an appropriate level unfortunately, because of employer funded healthcare, and the greed of lawyers and others who take advantage of the tort system, the cost of healthcare has made it difficult for many Americans to afford it. The answer is to fix the problems not to create a whole new system with a whole new set of problems.

The current government mandated healthcare safety net does need reform, probably one of the important steps would be to allow more regular access to non-emergency treatment, however, it should never be free to adults, only on a sliding scale so that all can afford it, but all must pay what they can, or they will not value it. Also, there would need to be some serious lifestyle changes made by those who wish to avail themselves of this care, but choose not to live a healthy lifestyle.

I do have a serious concern about healthcare for children who's parents by their own guilt or not do not provide for their children. I would suggest that programs be available to ensure that all children have available good quality care.

How to pay for all this? Part of the money could come from eliminating funding for moral evils of contraception, abortion, and severe reductions in funding for "day orphanages"... it is not healthy for children to be raised by strangers.

God Bless,

Matt

matt

matarfamilias,

ridiculously high natal mortality rate

I guess it's going to get even higher under HillaryCare what with all the free ABORTIONS that she's been slewing around.

Another interesting note, causality of this can quite easily be connected with previous abortions, and various methods of contraception, which clearly lead to complications in subsequent pregancies. Ectopic pregnancy has skyrocketed since 1972, this not related in any way to lack of pre-natal care or poverty, it's obviously related to abortion and contraception which damage the female reproductive system greatly. Under HillaryCare all of those "treatments" will be even more well funded.

Isn't pre-natal care provided under most state medicare plans?

I hope all goes well with your daughter.

God Bless,

Matt

SDG

Those who can't pay deserve to die.

Anonymous troll: Please pick a handle and stick with it at least within each post combox, as per house rulz. That way, we will know whether we are ignoring, say, B'Erica, or whether we are ignoring somebody else. Your cooperation is appreciated.

David B.

"It IS "an" answer. Some people will be satisfied with that. For them, it's an acceptable answer. For others, it isn't. No answer will please everyone."

AFAIK, the Church's opinion (that's too weak a word)is that socialized medicine isn't a good idea-or answer. Those who will be satisfied with socialized medicine will be the Politicians, not those who have to go to two different doctors over one malady.

David B.

Here's the thing; The rich have ALWAYS been able to afford more and better and faster EVERYTHING. That includes health care. Once the government takes over, there will be constant pressure, not to achieve an adequate level of basic care, but to achieve PARITY. The solution will be an ever increasing "health tax" on "the rich".

Spot on, Tim! The government has lowered the education stanards so those who struggle with learning, instead of receiving help and having their problems acknowledged, are made to feel "equality" (sameness) with those who find learning easy. With Unc' Sam in charge, the health care of all people will be lowered to match the average poor person's treatment options.

Leo

Tim J make an interesting suggestion about church provision.

In Germany there exist Catholic and Protestant hospitals funded through the state insurance scheme to which 90% of the population belong. Only those who earn above a certain level may opt out of the state scheme and most of them have private insurance.

I mention this because democratic countries have developed many socialized health care models in addition to the Stalinist fantasy imagined by some here.

whitestonenameseeker

Tim J makes the point I've been thinking about for a while as I struggle to get decent care under the Managment heavy NHS here in the UK.
The CHURCH is absent in developed countries and She ought not to be. Where are the medical orders?-have any really survived?
Could the Verona father's open clinics in the US and the UK as well as Africa- or are we being greedy?

I was tempted to write a lot on the mess the NHS here in the UK is in-but it's long winded and complicated so I wont.

It seems a shame the nursing and medical orders seem to have gone from the developed world-but with new religious orders springing up maybe a new order with this charism could come about.
We could certainly do with some religious to help us with the growing elderly population who have no one to take care of them.

Tim J.

I don't doubt we can rig up some system according to either the capitalist model or the socialist model (or some hybrid of the two), but if the Church opts out then, yes, we can expect to receive SOME decent level of health care either way, but delivered with little compassion.

This is what Mother Theresa spent her whole life doing. Was no one listening?

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31