Healthcare Reform: A Moral Good?

[GregorMendel]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/14/health/health-insurance/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

"CDC: Health reform extends coverage to young Americans"

This is a very interesting article and would be insightful for anyone questioning the moral benefits of healthcare reform.

While it will take years to impose and establish every provision, it is clear that the Affordable Care Act of 2010 is in the best interest of the country and is a rare example of legislation promoting Catholic social justice and teaching under this administration.

Do you think Healthcare Reform represents the promotion of Catholic social justice? Why or why not?

[dairygirl4u2c]

when health care is not afforadable or not an option for many people, that's a problem. we all are entitled to a basic supply of nature's resources, and that nicludes enough to be able to afford basic health care. the catholic chuch teaches those tentants per nature and resources, so it would extend naturally to basic health care, i'd imagine. i should be able to afford or have a cow, in which to barter with the doctor, kinda thing.
the way the cows are starting to pile up, i suppose one could argue, that it all costs so much, isn't the problem of society, it's just the average joe's problem. you can get your cow, but if it starts to cost too many, that's your problem. but health care isn't something that should cost so much, and i'd argue is a basic resource to the basic dignity of a person, so affordability, and access should be everyone's problem.
it isn't even like health care should be such a problem, cause at its core, it's just people who know a lot, being able to help those who don't, ie doctors. and that doesnt cost much, and we have plenty of smart peopleout there, and can get millions more, too. so it's not as if there's a necessary supply and demand problem, either. it's all political.
obvious disclaimer for those who abuse their own health or are too lazy to work. it's sad that too many here are too focused on these exceptions, when they are in reality only exceptions ie most people want to get work and pay for their health care, if only they could. kinda thing.

Edited December 14, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

this is probably a debate most hard core conservatives ehre will eerily ignore. they dont want to argue what everyone would rightfully call them out on, no health care for many good intending people etc.

[Papist]

Do people have a right to be provided healthcare or is it the right of access to healthcare?

[arfink]

Somehow I get the feeling that, as it's human life we're talking about here, it's not merely the access to healthcare, but the actual healthcare itself. Supposedly by there being doctors and insurance and hospitals that I have access to them... but access to healthcare and being able to actually, for example, pay for it are different in my mind.

My 2 cents.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1323884629' post='2351219']
Do people have a right to be provided healthcare or is it the right of access to healthcare?
[/quote]
Another important question to ask is whether or not you have the right to force somebody to work for you.

If we imagine two people who've been stranded on a desert island, what is a right to healthcare? What is a right to education? What is a right to a living wage? Do any of those things actually exist in that circumstance?

Of course that's an extreme example, but it raises questions that I think we should be considering.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1323887958' post='2351250']
Another important question to ask is whether or not you have the right to force somebody to work for you.

If we imagine two people who've been stranded on a desert island, what is a right to healthcare? What is a right to education? What is a right to a living wage? Do any of those things actually exist in that circumstance?

Of course that's an extreme example, but it raises questions that I think we should be considering.
[/quote]

But see, we aren't on a desert island. I'd argue that the United States and similar nations have a right to help make sure everyone has access to appropriate health care.

[DMcB]

I tend to side with Thomas Sowell on these issues. He wrote a great series of articles called, "[url="http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell030210.php3"]Alice in Healthcare[/url]." He also wrote a fantastic book titled, "Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy"

At the end of the day, economics is [i]the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative uses[/i]. Healthcare is subject is to law of economics. So while our emotions may tell us that healthcare (not coverage or insurance, but care) for all is as easy as passing legislation saying so, it simply isn't. And while the goal is quality care for all, we can definitely create, through wrong minded policies and legislation, a much worse situation than the one that already exists.

[dominicansoul]

I really wish Abortion wasn't considered "health care..."

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1323891428' post='2351271']

But see, we aren't on a desert island. I'd argue that the United States and similar nations have a right to help make sure everyone has access to appropriate health care.
[/quote]
We're talking about a right though. What is a right? What's the definition? After all, a government doesn't 'make' rights, they can merely recognize pre-existing rights. If rights pre-exist and transcend secular law and secular government, then I think the question changes, perhaps dramatically.

[DMcB]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1323887958' post='2351250']
Another important question to ask is whether or not you have the right to force somebody to work for you. [/quote]
Nailed it!

This part of the conversation is often left out by those supporting "universal healthcare/coverage/insurance." With rights come responsibilities, and so when one declares that a right exists they're also insisting that it be provided; and not always of their own volition.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1323892579' post='2351282']
We're talking about a right though. What is a right? What's the definition? After all, a government doesn't 'make' rights, they can merely recognize pre-existing rights. If rights pre-exist and transcend secular law and secular government, then I think the question changes, perhaps dramatically.
[/quote]

True. And I think we'd all agree that certain rights outweigh other ones. Like life, for instance. But I think down the line you get to a place where there's a right to have access to adequate medical care. What constitutes adequate care? What role does the government have in securing everyone's access to that care?

As far as insurance companies now covering health care of young people on their parents' plan until the age of 26, I think it's a very good thing. Then again, I'm 23 and a student, and couldn't afford health insurance otherwise on my own. I think the extension in age reflects the changing economic times. Young people go to college, graduate, and can't find jobs right away. Extending coverage until 26 helps bridge that gap.

[Luigi]

WARNING: This is a long post - at least for me.


IMHO...

1. Access (including affordability through some kind of insurance) to basic health care is a right.

2. By basic health care I mean: A) prenatal care for expectant mothers; B) pediatric shots & medications for common childhood diseases; C) annual physicals for adults; D) common operations (stitches, appendectomies, setting broken bones, gall bladder, etc.) but does not necessarily include leading-edge treatments; E) medications to control common conditions such as high blood pressure and heart conditions; F) geriatric care, including as much in-home health care as possible.

3. I'd argue long and hard before I approved government payment or "insurance must cover" for anything beyond that.


One reason that health care is problematic is that the cost of health care is unduly high. This is largely the result of every company at every step of the health care delivery system trying to make unduly high profits:

1. Medical schools limit the number of applicants selected, resulting n a shortage of doctors (thus, many 'imported' doctors), resulting in high charges by doctors;

2. Medical equipment companies convince doctors that they need the newest & most expensive equipment (and doctors like new toys as much as anyone else does) - once they purchase a new machine (MRI, open MRI, yada yada yada), they require as many patients as possible to use/be diagnosed with it;

3. Pharmaceutical companies retain a stranglehold on patented (that's not the right word - what is it?) medications, often making unduly high profits for quite a while before the drug is available as a generic;

4. Hospitals are constantly expanding to compete with other hospitals - to do so, they have to generate income much greater than what maintenance requires. Even non-profit hospitals have to over-charge patients to generate construction/expansion capital;

5. Insurance companies generally want to make as much profit as possible although there are some exceptions;

6. Patients want the latest & greatest diagnostic tools, procedures, and therapies, even - or especially? - in hopeless situations.


The American public must take some responsibility for the problem as well, since many folks have come to believe that health/wellness is something that is done [i]to[/i] them or [i]for[/i] them by health care professionals rather than something they can largely control - or at least contribute to greatly - through diet, exercise, and elimination of vices (smoking, drinking, overeating, etc.). Certainly, many conditions have a hereditary origin that the patient is not responsible for, but many unhealthy people contribute to their own conditions.

Additionally, some of the groups above form alliances to lobby for their own agendas. The clearest example I know involves cochlear implants. The impant itself costs over $50,000, then there's the operation, then there's the adjusting & training for the implant, then there's the years of speech therapy. Audiologists, cochlear implant manufacturers, and surgeons convince parents of deaf children that their child [i]needs[/i] a cochlear implant. The implant can, indeed, help some deaf children hear, but they're not as good as the vendor claims, the child still may never hear what we hear, the child may never develop fluent speech, and the child could suffer lasting negative side effects (debilitating dizziness, nausea, headaches, and more). When the battery goes out, the child is still deaf. In fact, the child is still deaf while sleeping, or in the swimming pool, or playing basketball, or playing on plastic playground equipment (which builds up static electricity, which shocks the child in the cochlea and/or fries the implant). Then the parents, audiologists, and surgeons lobby state governments to require that cochlear implants and the surgery to install them be covered by insurance companies... so the audiologists-surgeons-manufacturers can all continue working and making profit.

Lastly, I am very chary about any kind of government program because the government has to define the benefits - in this case, possibly to include birth control & abortion, and to require Catholic hospitals to cooperate or shut down - and because no matter how they define needs & benefits, it's always too broad and winds up costing too much for too few people - and often the wrong people.

I do think access to basic health care is a right, I just don't know how to supply it to those who need it.

[Jesus_lol]

to a certain extent saying "people have the right to access healthcare and that is enough." is similar to saying to a starving poor man "you have access to all the food in the stores" and then walking away.

It isnt enough. Debating about where money will come from, ethics of certain procedures, payments etc is all well and good, but if we cant provide a certain amount of life saving healthcare to those who cant afford it, then we are failing.

Logically, the question of who has the right to another's work is a good one. But true love and compassion, such as what Jesus teaches cant be justified solely through economic practices. You cant pull another man up from the dirt without expending some of your energy. The injured man on the ground didnt pay for the food that gives you the strength to pull him to shelter, it is the love for man in your heart that repays you.

[AccountDeleted]

I have no idea what the solution is to the health care problems in the US, but I do wish you would get it together. I have lived in Canada, England and Australia and never have to think about health care but if I move back to the US next year, I don't want to worry about it there either! So get it together over there soon! Please