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.

[Nunsense]

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

[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