Healthcare Reform: A Moral Good?

[DMcB]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1323946352' post='2351572']
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.
[/quote]
And this point is well taken. However, putting more government into the equation will not lead us to a situation in which more people are receiving quality care.

Luigi, a few things to consider: the insurance industry has steadily reaped profits of about 3%. Now while that is a HUGE amount of money, it shows that much of the money IS NOT "going into the pockets of CEOs." In my understanding, a fair amount of money associated with healthcare has to do with government regulations and malpractice/product liability insurance. All of which says nothing of the cost of equipment, staff (which some may be working simply to keep up with government/insurance billing/compliance, and not providing care) and facilities (maintenance and utilities [another highly regulated and therefore more expensive entity]). And it stands to reason that the customer picks up the bill.

As for the cost of schooling medical professionals & the limited space available in nursing/med programs, well, it makes sense: most medical professionals make more money working strictly with patients, so in order to pull those folks away and get them into a teaching position, it costs money. Work in the Baby Boomer situation, and bingo bango bongo, we don't have as many medical professionals as we need.

When it comes to looking at these problems, my default setting is to look at government interference and go from there. I don't see any real world examples of sustainable, quality, or affordable (not just to the individual but the national economy as a whole) government run health [b]care. [/b]Most are hybrid systems for a reason...the government end of the deal can not provide what was promised, and yet the tax payers (which doesn't mean those of working age, simply those with jobs) are still taxed at really high rates; and many are still forced to pursue additional converge to their national health system. All the while, a HUGE voting block of government workers has been created, and in order to protect their own jobs, refuse to see the writing on the wall, and continue to vote for statism.

I'm arguing the free market provides for the greatest amount of people to pursue resources. I'm not arguing the free market is perfect, sadly, some will not benefit from it; but that is where charity and compassion come into play. Which is another avenue I'd like to see the government (partially) removed. At least when those down on their luck go into a church or (even a privately run) charity looking for assistance, the folks working there are often there out of the kindness of their hearts; and not because "it's a job" at the social security office. Ever been to one of those places? I have. And I didn't feel like the employees were seeing the face of God in their charges.

I hope that I don't come across as wanting to bicker over words, or just as bad, that I am on my high horse. If I am coming across as a know it all, please understand that it is not intentional, I only want to share my understanding of the situation.

Edited December 15, 2011 by DMcB

[Papist]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1323946352' post='2351572']
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.
[/quote]
Love and compassion must be given freely, not by force and threat of imprisonment.

[dairygirl4u2c]

as i have a tendency of having to do at this board, i'd first point out that sometimes to say it's charity's place, is just misplaced. sure, jesus didn't say to go get government to help out, but that was probably a different context of what jesus was talking about. we can still use his principles of helping out hte little guy, for when it is government's place. when is it government's place? i say when there's a fundamental problem, it's the rule not the exception, that something is wrong in society, be it starvation, lack of decent health care etc... especially when it's not even because supply isn't there but just because that's the way it is and things have worked, ie here in America. when is charity warranted? when the person is simply down on their luck, or it's a lazy guy, or something. to have a bake sale for a standard expensive operation for example is ridiculous if that becomes the norm in society, for no good reason. excuse me while i barf at the idea of little old lady or little johnny etc trying to get their extra two shillings to help out, or whatever, figure of speech... barfing not at their good will, but at the idea that this is what we should expect from government and society.

[Luigi]

[quote name='DMcB' timestamp='1323955532' post='2351600']

Luigi, a few things to consider: the insurance industry has steadily reaped profits of about 3%. Now while that is a HUGE amount of money, it shows that much of the money IS NOT "going into the pockets of CEOs." In my understanding, a fair amount of money associated with healthcare has to do with government regulations and malpractice/product liability insurance. All of which says nothing of the cost of equipment, staff (which some may be working simply to keep up with government/insurance billing/compliance, and not providing care) and facilities (maintenance and utilities [another highly regulated and therefore more expensive entity]). And it stands to reason that the customer picks up the bill.

[/quote]

You're right about the insurance. The cost of insurance isn't a matter of company profits alone. The liability issue contributes significantly to the cost.

I guess my larger point is that the cost of health care - which prohibits so many people from receiving health care - is a very complex problem involving every element of the health care system. Changing just the insurance element, or just the payer element, is not going to solve the problem. In fact, changing any one element alone may not make much improvement at all.

[dairygirl4u2c]

a bottom line with the idea that we are to allow people access to nature's resources, is that we are saying 'it's not in our place to deny you from going and planting some corn to eat, or land to raise a cow, as is natural law while lour laws deny that even while you die.... so we will repay you in kind'. we can't just say it's government's place to merely recognize the right to eat and not factor in all this stuff. in the same way, we have to factor it in for getting resources to fix oneself medically, to a reasonable extent.
.
a good way to look at malpractice costs is to look at how much it costs for insurance, my understranding is it wouldnt cost more than eight percent of total costs. while a lot, we can know that malpractice suits etc don't cost more than eight percent of what's going on. this is signigiant but not a way to say it's all lawyers and law suits etc as problem. i dont think it's even eight percent, but i do know that's a nunmber i heard and is a common number in insurance costs.

i dont know what the profit percentage is etc. but i do know administrative costs and profit account for thirty percent of costs. and most of these costs are redundancies in the system repeated by each insurance company. government can do it better. that's the biggest reason, aside from the moral imperitives, that we should look at health care reform as a moral good, and a yes a moral imperitives.
i also know, that the free market is the primary culprit here, not law suits or anything else. we have thirty percent on costs and profit with only eight percent or so on malpractice etc. what's the culprit? the insurance companies getting what they can, cause they can. it's when an average dude goes to teh doctor just cause he's insured, espeicailly when ti's through an employer who can just foot the bill instead of making him shop around etc. all these common sense precautions go out the window with insurance, and then the average guy who can't afford it is stuck... all because of the free market and how it's allowed thing to work, or more acccurately, not work.
i'm sure there's ways to regulate the market, so as to ensure that the free market works better. and if it's done right, the free market would always do better, if regulated right, in the end.

a huge problem is we don't have enough doctors, and should. the AMA stopped opening schools going on thirty years ago, while the population grows exponentially and is apt and able. they did i think recently open more doors but only some. we shouldn't just chaulk up the lack of professionals to the fact that it's grueling and time consuming etc to be a doctor... cause God knows how many people would do what it takes to become one. this too mind you is about the free market... sure, it'd abide by free market principles to have more doctors, but it's not the laws that say no more doctors, it's the AMA and politics there... free market politics.
and not that we'd even be expecting doctors to work for free with market reform, but even if we did... it's not that outlandish or uncalled for. when the gov gives you a monopoly, it's also their placed also to ask you to help out a little here and there.

as i showed in my single payer thread, it's mroe efficient and cost effective to cover everyone (we pay seventeen percent of our GDP while single payer countries spend ten percent, while they have everyone covered and less expensive and better health outcomes.... the US is terrible at life expectancy or sickness etc, when they used to be number one and then later number fifteen etc, now down terrible, compared to even many nonindustrialized countries). we should do it.

Edited December 15, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

one thing we can be sure of, is if we reformed health care to single payer or something, that it'd cost less. we can still have problems in the structure, procedures that are coverered that shoudlnt be, or whatever, and im always going to be one that will see fault in the details, and will just have to accept that it will never be perfect. but at teh end of the day, if it costs less, that is something we should be rallying behind, and go from there. if we can't go from there so to speak, it still costs less, it's a major win and we can be content with that.

[dairygirl4u2c]

''excuse me while i barf at the idea of little old lady or little johnny etc trying to get their extra two shillings to help out, or whatever, figure of speech... barfing not at their good will, but at the idea that this is what we should expect from government and society.''''

especially when it's a systematic problem, of a fundamental problem, of a fundamental issue.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1323946352' post='2351572']
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.
[/quote]
"For also when we were with you, this we declared to you: that, if any man will not work, neither let him eat."

Kinda harsh, no?
I understand your point and in a certain sense agree, but there's more to it than that.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1323992816' post='2351841']
"For also when we were with you, this we declared to you: that, if any man will not work, neither let him eat."

Kinda harsh, no?
I understand your point and in a certain sense agree, but there's more to it than that.
[/quote]


well, in cases where a man cannot afford to provide his children life saving medicine and healthcare, despite having one or two jobs, its not like the guy isnt trying, but either way the child is being punished merely for being born into the wrong family.

and im not sure that quote is universally applicable, either. If a guy showed up at my house and asked for a meal, and i said he could have it and a place to sleep if he helped me with some chores, but he refused out of laziness, then i would be much less inclined to help him. i might still, but i wouldnt feel obligated to. So yeah, i see it applying for stuff like that.

but if i see a poor guy on the street injured and in need of help... Its hardly the same situation.

Edited December 16, 2011 by Jesus_lol

[Nihil Obstat]

What I mean by that quote is that the 'right' to the necessities of life clearly can't be considered absolute. There are conditions attached. Most of the disagreement then lies in determining what those conditions are.

[penguin31]

I fully acknowledge that in general, I support health care reform to the point of the government providing medical services. And I'm typically not a supporter of government intervention into services. But we're talking about the preservation of human life, something I consider far more important than the profit motive, or any concerns over whether the recipient of care has done enough, in the opinion of others, to deserve care.

Whether it was meant that way or not, the fact is several people in this very thread - people who I know by fact are pro-life - have stood here and argued that if you don't meet some sort of arbitrary standard of societal contribution you no longer deserve the preservation of your life. That's absolutely ridiculous, and as someone vehemently pro-life I find it insulting. Everyone deserves the right of life, everyone has the right to live, and everyone has the right to have that live preserved. It's basic humanity.

My chief concern is that the medical needs of society be met. Private coverage has had it's chance, and then some. And the book of horror stories from privatized medicine could fill ten times more shelf space than the book of horrors from government-subsidized or government-managed care. And I'm sorry, but the rights of people to live, and to be as healthy as possible within that life, trump anyone's need or desire to make money either through the financing of medical services or through the practice of medicine. And this is coming from someone who has aspired strongly to enter that very profession.

Edited December 16, 2011 by penguin31

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='penguin31' timestamp='1324000994' post='2351893']
Whether it was meant that way or not, the fact is several people in this very thread - people who I know by fact are pro-life - have stood here and argued that if you don't meet some sort of arbitrary standard of societal contribution you no longer deserve the preservation of your life.[/quote]
I haven't seen anybody argue that.

[penguin31]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1324001112' post='2351895']
I haven't seen anybody argue that.
[/quote]
[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1324000536' post='2351889']
What I mean by that quote[b] is that the 'right' to the necessities of life clearly can't be considered absolute. There are conditions attached. Most of the disagreement then lies in determining what those conditions are.[/b]
[/quote]

They're the [u]necessities of life[/u]. By DEFINITION they're necessary for life. Implying that conditions have to be met imply some sort of required action on the part of a participant [b]in life[/b] - some sort of [i]contribution to society. [/i]Conditions and contributions being arbitrarily set by someone or some group of someones.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='penguin31' timestamp='1324001486' post='2351898']

They're the [u]necessities of life[/u]. By DEFINITION they're necessary for life. Implying that conditions have to be met imply some sort of required action on the part of a participant [b]in life[/b] - some sort of [i]contribution to society. [/i]Conditions and contributions being arbitrarily set by someone or some group of someones.
[/quote]
Is food a necessity of life?
Did St. Paul not say in that passage that there are some 'strings' attached?
If there are strings attached, then the right is not absolute.

[Nihil Obstat]

As a minor aside, I think our language needs to be further developed when speaking about rights. I'm not sure it makes logical sense to talk about a right that has restrictions. My instinct is to say that a right is something that cannot, by nature, be restricted. The right to life is the best example of this; there is no restriction, nor is restriction possible.
But then we can think about a 'right' to food. This cannot logically be absolute. Even a person in grave, grave need, a person starving to death, cannot take food from a person who is in equally grave need but happened to get his hands on a piece of bread. Clearly St. Paul also restricted this 'right', by saying that at least a person has to be willing to work for it.

So I don't think the language we're using is sufficient. We need to distinguish between something that cannot logically be restricted in any sense whatsoever, like the right to life, as opposed to 'rights' that are subject to limits and conditions.