John Stossel has a nice piece on socialized medicine as being advocated by Michael Moore and various others.
Here’s the nut of the piece:
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.
Yeah. Like anything else, medical care is a limited resource with alternative uses, making it a subject of economics. If you don’t have a monetary rationing system, you’re going to have some other rationing system, and in an egalitarian society you’re likely to get a time-based rationing system (meaning: waiting lists).
He’s got some real horror stories about England and Canada.
GET THE STORY.
I thought Michael Moore WAS the nut of the story…
What Dean said.
Equal misery for all!
…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).
So what is the solution then?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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”.
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
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.
“It is ’emminantly’ doable.”
So why hasn’t any country come up with a socialized medicine plan that has worked?
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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?
“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.
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.
Government-run health care, in the great government tradition: Post Office efficiency, Internal Revenue Service compassion, at Pentagon prices.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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).
for which I was treated free of charge
I think you mean you were treated at the charge of others, don’t you?
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.
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?
God bless our Australian health care system.
“The procedure is partially rebatable under Medicare, the government-funded public health scheme.”
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.”
It is “an” answer. Whether that answer satisfies you, or whomever, is another matter.
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
Why, B’Erica, that sounds suspiciously like a conviction. Keep talking like that, and somebody might think that you believe something.
Who are the uninsured:
http://www.freemarketcure.com/uninsuredinamerica.php
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.
Oh, you know me, B’Erica, I’m not one to jump to conclusions. I just said “sounds suspiciously like.”
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.
Catholic Social Justice teaching states:
As Catholics, shouldn’t we work towards this end? How does our current health care system guarantee health care for all persons?
Bolding mine.
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.
Erica– given that you have no information on how hard Matt works, you might want to get *actual information* to back up your accusations.
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– 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.
Erica — really. Do you work with him? Are you his boss? Do you even KNOW Matt in person?
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
Don’t feed the troll.
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
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
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I believe a large chunk of why the Church isn’t as active in health care in the US is because there’s a very good chance– well, virtual assurance– that they would be sued and forced to either close or provide immoral “care.”
Same reason applies to any orders opening up. Even SOUP KITCHENS get sued for being “too religious.”
Foxfier,
you’re absolutely correct. For many decades the Church provided care for all who came. Catholic hospitals proliferated, as the government and big insurance (resulting primarily from government incentives) edged their way in, the Church was edged out. Just as in education, most Catholic hospitals are Catholic in name only.
God Bless,
Matt
Christopher Sarsfield:
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.
Americans have that option. We Canadians do not.
In Canada, it is absolutely illegal for a Canadian resident to pay, or offer to pay, for any procedure covered by the public health-care system. If you need an MRI, in most jurisdictions, the waiting period is anywhere from four months to a year or more. Thousands of Canadians travel to the U.S. every year to pay to have MRIs done in a timely manner.
When I say ‘absolutely illegal’, I am not exaggerating. Doctors are not permitted to bill patients for insured procedures, and any doctor caught taking money for such a procedure may lose his medical licence, his hospital privileges, his ability to bill the public health-care system, or all three.
However, the Canadian public health-care system is perfectly at liberty to sell services to persons, such as Americans, who are not covered at public expense. But most surgical procedures, and a lot of other health-care items, are rationed here by strict numeric quotas. We have hospital ORs that are only permitted to be open for a few hours a day; we have surgeons who are only allowed to bill for a set number of surgical procedures per month; above all, we have medical schools that are not allowed to take in more than their government-set quota of medical students every year, no matter how critical the shortage of doctors becomes. It was decided in Canada, back in the 1990s, that the easiest way to control the cost of health care was to restrict the number of doctors. You tell me if that makes sense.
Materfamilias:
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.
Two points here:
1. Dental care isn’t covered by the public health-care system in Canada, either. Neither are prescription drugs or routine eye care. We have universal health care, free for everybody who hasn’t got eyes or teeth and never has to take any medication. For all those other things, you have to buy private insurance or pay out of pocket — and millions of Canadians don’t have that private insurance.
2. If you’re going to argue that the government ought to be subsidizing people’s diets, the logical outcome — assuming you also support socialized medicine — is a socialized food supply. Why should rich people be allowed to eat better food than poor people? Why should the private sector be permitted to run grocery stores and restaurants for profit, when food is such an obvious basic necessity of life? If the right to health care is a good enough reason to have socialized medicine, then a fortiori the right to eat is a good enough reason to have socialized food — and we should all be eating standardized meals in state-run cafeterias. But I’ve never met any leftist (except for a handful of doctrinaire Communists) who had the honesty and the guts to follow their own logic to that conclusion.
I accidentally left out the nub of my argument to Mr. Sarsfield through clumsy editing; my apologies.
The point: Whenever a foreigner comes to Canada to pay for a publicly-insured and rationed procedure, it takes away some of the fixed quota of doctors and resources that were supposed to provide that care to Canadians — and our waiting lists get even longer. Our only recourse is to go to the U.S. to get those procedures done, at the high prices that the American patients came to Canada to avoid. Where’s the justice in that?
–“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.”–Mary
Mary, I think your confidence in the major pharmaceutical companies is misplaced. They will charge you and over charge you to the max regardless of what is happening elsewhere in the world. It is in their corporate nature to do so.
And, I would have even less confidence in the FDA to act in your best interests. They play political hardball at a level that has little if nothing to do with the public interest, and they have created, along with the AMA, a closed shop. Medicine is what they say it is, and woe to the person who thinks outside the approved box. Just check out the treatment for cancer. There are four possibilities; do nothing (only if you have no money or insurance), radiation, poisonous chemicals (hoping the cancer will die before the patient), and surgery, or some combination of the above.
There is limited competition within the American medical system, and that system only operates within parameters approved by non-accountable agencies and organizations who have effectively, by regulation, frozen out any real competition. It is a fallacy to think that the American medical system is really a free market system. That is an illusion backed by sloganeering from those with the most to lose.
That is not to say that socialized medicine is any better. It is just a different set of bureaucrats that control the valves and make decisions that are life and death to the ordinary peons.
What is necessary in America is to blow up the FDA and start over, break the strangle hold that corporations like the pharmaceuticals have on the delivery of medicine, and introduce laws to weaken the power of the AMA. In short, accountability and transparency with some tort reform thrown in. The money will take care of itself.
But, do you know of any politician with the clout and the guts to do it?
But, do you know of any politician with the clout and the guts to do it?
Ron Paul!
Health care costs have to be paid for somehow, whether
– directly by individuals
– through insurance whether private/employer/state compulsory
– through taxation.
All but the first of these are forms of collective provision.
Socialized schemes and private insurance schemes are similar in being collective and rationed because health costs are potentially unlimited.
Private insurance schemes are collective. The healthy subsidize the sick. A premium is paid against the possibility of being faced with an unaffordable cost. Which is then paid for from the contributions of those who are not claiming. Someone who pays insurance but never claims will have paid more into the system than they get out of it (whether health, auto or fire). But most of us think the gamble of house insurance is prudent, because we don’t know the future and are not millionaires
Private insurance schemes are rationed by insurance companies eg treatments excluded from that healthplan’s cost/benefits, ‘experimental treatments’, ‘unproven treatments’, ‘excluded prexisting conditions’, etc..
I imagine that some employer schemes exclude relatives with certain types of conditions and that people have been refused employment solely because of potential health insurance costs.
The main differences between private insurance and compulsory state insurance/taxation are:
– one chooses to pay private insurance
– a private insurer may decline to insure you, but a socialized scheme is universal.
Morning’s Minion identifies some problems with the US system
and offers a solution
But, do you know of any politician with the clout and the guts to do it?
Ron Paul!
Guts he has, clout he has nought.
I like LJ’s points, he has it right I think, except that socialized medicine completely eliminates the modicum of competition that remains, and probably the option to pay out of pocket for unapproved treatments.
Leo,
the 1% figure for medicare is laughable. You have to be kidding… You’re also not taking into account the fact that insurance companies invest the premiums and earn substantial returns, such that the actual overhead is probably closer to 0.
Morning minion is a hotbed of socialism, so I wouldn’t put a lot of weight into the arguments over there. Catholic social teaching is principally applied to our own acts of compassion, not to what the government dole provides for. Compulsion and compassion are inconsistent.
God Bless,
Matt
Methinks Morning Minion’s proposed cure is worse than the diease (sorry, couldn’t resist).
For anyone who’s intereseted, here is an article on the administrative costs issue:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/1/24/161041.shtml
I am forever lamenting the fact that health “insurance” is the way we do things at all. My dream happy world would have catastrophic health insurance only, not a “prepaid” health cost system like we currently have. Why do I need to pay $600/month in order to get back the cost of a well or sick visit? If most of us self-insured for the regular costs and used health insurance for the catastrophic (or at least just major, like surgery) events, wouldn’t the minor events be more affordable?
Imagine if we did car insurance the same way – paying huge amounts in monthly so that our insurance co. would pay for our gas, oil changes, the rare fender bender and even rarer wreck. IMO, insurance should be for large, unforeseen expenses – not the everyday.
You assume you know everybody’s intentions and also that no matter what someone believes as long as one advocates public healthcare (which I’m not advocating by the way) they are Marxists whether they know it or not. That’s the kind of behavior and opinion I usually find in hardcore fundamentalist Christians that think they can read people’s mind and intentions better than they can, as well as thinking the world is black/white.
Yes… I guess we’ll are naive and stupid not to see your point of view and rally to it… Thanks… Talk about self righteousness.
That says it all again… I personally don’t have any bad feelings about you and I didn’t think I was rude. Secondly you assume I’m not American, like only a non-American would dare speak the words I have spoken. Your attitude is contemptible and show little respect for others and that’s why people like you aren’t taken seriously… Plenty of people on this board make a good argument against social healthcare and don’t question people’s intentions like you do without evidence.
Also I didn’t find many foreigners on this thread that criticize “your” country while glorifying theirs, so again why do you feel the need to complain? Who trashed America on this thread? Not me, so why the anymosity. Also I would expect to treate others they way I expect them to treat my country, thus if I expect them to repsect America I will respect them (which doesn’t mean I have to agree with their laws and systems and ideas by the way). I’m glad most people in the US aren’t like you, since that would just prove to all the prejudiced people abroad that they would be right about Americans being jerks (which is obviously totally contrary from the truth).
You say you don’t care what other people think but you seem to get riled up about it so which one is it? I care about what you think, whether we agree or not, because I you’re as important in the scheme of thins as any other person. I don’t even think we disagree that much, I don’t like it either when I hear people criticizing my country when it’s a bunch of crock and unfair and biased, but I’ll make it a point to not do the same thing then.
I think it matters to care about how others perceive our country, that doesn’t mean we have to agree or do what other countries wish either! You can point out the idiocies Europeans say about the US all you want it doesn’t give you a free pass to do the same about them. In any case if you found me rude then I apologize because I didn’t mean to be and I don’t expect you to agree with me, I just think you’re worth better than the statements you’ve made and I usually enjoy reading your contributions on this blog.
NaturalCatholicMama,
absolutely correct, insurance is for catastrophes, not day to day issues, that’s why I liked Bush’s idea of health savings account in conjunction with high deductible health plans. We pay for the day to day, and insurance covers any major problems.
Blackadder,
absolutely right.
Matt
NaturalCatholicMama,
Good point!
I get employer paid health insurance (that I also pay into). I have two options: no health insurance, or the whole enchilada. Since I only needed 1 out-patient procedure in the last 30 years, and I never meet the deductible for doctor visits, having major medical insurance has been a waste of money and bureacracy.
Jimmy,
May I politely suggest you stick to apologetics, because economics is simply beyond your competence. What in the name of God does John Stossel know of health care? From reading his piece, absolutely nothing. I would direct your attention to an argument I made for a single-payer system a while back: http://vox-nova.com/2007/06/26/health-care-reform-in-defense-of-single-payer-systems/.
Here is the crux of the matter: the radical individualists who inhabit the Republican party believe in actuarial, as opposed to social insurance. In other words, you pay according to your risk, just like car insurance. How wonderfully appropriate for a laissez-faire economic system condemned by the magisterium! On the other side, there is social insurance: the young and the healthy subsidize the old and the sick, on the grounds that they themselves will be helped when they become old and sick.
Let’s start with the facts: , the U.S. spends $4,497 a year on health care per capita (in PPP dollars), as opposed to a G-7 average of $2,524. And for almost double the spending, the outcomes are far worse. Life expectancy in lower in the US. The infant, child, and maternal mortality rates are substantially higher. Americans have fewer doctors per capita, go to the doctor less often, and are admitted to hospital less frequently. They are less satisfied with the quality of health care than those in other countries. And of course, the US stands apart from other advanced countries by having a a huge hole in the health care net, as around 47 million people (including 8 million children) are uninsured.
I believe there are 4 key arguments for single payer.
First, administrative savings. Medicare devotes less than 2 percent of its resources to overhead, while private insurance companies spend as much as 20 percent on profits, marketing and administrative expenses. Remember private insurance companies make monye by screening people and denying coverage.
Second, , and related, moving to a single-payer system reduces the administrative costs arising from excessive fragmentation and administrative duplication in the health care market. The current health care jungle explains why the US is slower than other countries at adopting electronic medical records that can both reduce costs and save lives by reducing errors.
Third, costs can be contained by using the negotiating power of the single payer to get better deals from suppliers, including drug companies. Or, you can have the drug companies write a bill that rewards themselves with massive subsidies…
Fourth, a single payer system would make it easier to focus on preventive care, and to look after the patient in a holistic manner. One of the scandals of the American system, both morally and on cost-efficiency, is its reliance on the ER for primary care. In the US, specialists earn 300 percent more than primary-care providers, versus an international norm of 30 percent. A health care system based on true Catholic principles, including subsidiarity, would invest in such a holistic approach, with a personal relationship between patient and doctor, not the current conveyer-belt system.
Remember single payer simply means taking the profit-making insurance companies out of the picture. It does not mean nationalized health care, or that governments own hospitals, or that all doctors work for the government. Very few seem to understand the difference between single payer and single provider, and the UK is the latter, not the former.
Morning’s Minion,
I would suggest then that you stick to failed socialist economics and avoid making incorrect statements about magisterial teachings. The free market system is not condemned by the Church (although socialism is), it is only that the Church requires restrictions on the free market in the interest of justice.
By the way, you proved my point about the hotbed of socialism over at your blog, you won’t get away with that crap over here.
God Bless,
Matt
Matt thinks my arguments are a “hotbed of socialism”. I’m sure he would say the same of Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno, or indeed Pope Benedict who claimed that much of democratic socialism is compatible with Catholic social teaching. You people need to get beyond the American laisses-faire mentality — remember, this was roundly condemned by the magisterium.
Now, addressing the point on medical malpratice. This is a complete red herring. In the most comprehensive study on the matter, Tom Baker (“The Medical Malpractice Myth”) argues that (as summarized by Ezra Klein: http://www.slate.com/id/2145400/)– “After all, including legal fees, insurance costs, and payouts, the cost of the suits comes to less than one-half of 1 percent of health-care spending. If anything, there are fewer lawsuits than would be expected, and far more injuries than we usually imagine.”
As for Blackadder’s point about hidden costs in Medicare– that misses some basic economics– ask yourself: how do insurance companies make money?? And again, it all comes back to the fumdanental issue: the US spends twice as much per patient in PPP dollars than European countries with single payer systems, and gets a lot less in return. You simply cannot defend this system.
Matt,
Are you at all familiar with CST? Have you not seen that the magesterium condemned liberalism as vehemently as it did socialism (and look up what “liberalism” means if you have been bamboozled by its mis-application in currentUS usage)? Maybe you find Thomas Aquinas to be “socialist” when we talked about property have a twofold use of private possession and common use?
As for getting away with that “crap”, as you so delicately put it, I have yet to see any rebuttal based on sound economics for any of the positions.
Ah, matt and Morning’s Minion: two hyper-ideological loonies who are each convinced that they hold the unvarnished truth and the Church is on their side. It’s entertaining in a trainwreck in slow motion, Hitler and Stalin have a knife fight sort of way.
With daedalus providing objective play-by-play commentary, hm?
daedalus, is this your first post in this thread? House rulz call for users to post under a consistent handle at least within each combox.
Morning’s Minion-
I’d suggest you take a class in how to address folks in order to promote your cause.
Hint: attacking the host of a blog you invade really will not win you any friends. It’s also highly rude.
I’m going to take a deep breath, a cup of coffee and maybe mull over things a little.
Maybe so, Foxfier, and my apologies for the tone. It’s just that I have been involved in this debate for a long time now, and I get frustrated when I see this kind of post. Mr. Akin is an able apologist, but I sometimes doubt his competency on matters of economics and public policy. For example, how can one simply denounce single-payer systems and single-provider systems under the same unbrella of “socialized medicine”?
We also need to get beyond the slogans. If we are to denounce “socialized” medicine, we must also denounce “laissez-faire liberalized” medicine, for the Church condemns both (see, for example, Quadragesimo Anno). Far better to answer the question: what health care system is best suited to serving the common good in this time and place? It is an urgent question, as people are suffering here.
Just one more point on rationing, folks:
The idea that Americans face shorter waiting times than patients under single payer systems is a fallacy. A problem in making comparisons is that single payer systems typically keep centralized statistics on waiting times, but not so in the US. But the lack of statistics does not mean the lack of a problem. And the evidence all points to the fact that American people are waiting as long or longer than patients living with universal health-care systems. A recent survey by the Commonwealth Fund found that only 47 percent of Americans could get a same or next-day appointment, lower than any other country except Canada. Remember too that health care is rationed extensively by cost in the US. More than half of all sick Americans stayed away from a doctor on cost grounds– needless to say, this is off the charts by comparison with countries offering universal care.
A big part of the problem is the pattern of medical specialization. In Europe, GPs make up half of all physicians, but less than a third in the US. And only 40% of doctors in the US provide after-hours care, as opposed to 75% elsewhere. Where do Americans get their primary care? From emergency rooms. About 26 percent of all Americans visited emergency rooms over the past two years because they could not see their regular doctor. Of course, the US is not all bad: It has relatively short waiting times for non-emergency surgery, including hip replacement or cataract operation (is it any surprise that this forms the basis of the most popular anecdote?)– but even here, it is beaten by Germany.
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.
Mary,
I believe you overlooked my conclusion:
“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.”
Drug companies are there to make money.
Yes, a percentage of the price (i.e., mark-up) is comprised of an amount due to R&D; however, overall, they are there to make money.
Even if patents were enforced in every country they had an issued patent in, this would not result in the priced reduction of drugs that you keep claiming.
On the contrary, keep in mind that patents essentially allow a “legalized” monopoly.
More to the point, drug companies would perhaps be more emboldened to raise the prices of drugs than anything else if they were able to exploit patent enforcement to their fullest potential for the entire 20 years of the life of their patent(s) (assuming the patents are in the U.S. or even a PCT-contracting state) due to the legalized monopoly they’re essentially granted.
I don’t believe there’s anything basically wrong with patents or companies taking advantage of patents.
I just believe there’s something wrong with your assumptions.
Morning’s minion,
I think your main problem is an inability to distinguish between the actions of the faithful and voluntary associations, and the actions of the state. There’s no doubt, as you can see by my posts and other’s here is that the current system is in need of repair. The answer is less state intervention, not more. And you won’t find a Catholic document that says otherwise.
God Bless,
Matt
Foxfier,
God does demand charity of you. I wasn’t demanding it for myself, just relaying God’s message.
You will be held accountable. There is a final.
$50 a month? Mine was $400 a month. And coverage was rather incomplete. Can you be telling the truth?
LarryD, the Constution only delegates certain powers to the federal government. It does not grant rights. Rights are unalienable and come from God, see the Declaration of Independence.
I believe that the RCC in America did great harm by privatizing her hospitals. I don’t know if those hospitals can be reclaimed, but any that remained ought not to be sold off.
I don’t think that State operated and controlled healthcare is a good answer. It may be a nightmarish answer, but neither are the blissfully ignorant claims of those who claim that all already have healthcare available to the, even remotely true.
“$50 a month? Mine was $400 a month. And coverage was rather incomplete. Can you be telling the truth?”
Yes. The health plan where I work (I’m not eligible yet, but will be soon) costs a whopping $22 per pay period, which is every two weeks.
I don’t know how they do it, but they do, and the coverage is very good. I’m thinking, “where do I sign?”.
My wife’s coverage through her employer is more like $500 a month, though.
Tim J,
are you sure your employer doesn’t subsidize it? that’s pretty typical where they do.
Matt
are you sure your employer doesn’t subsidize it? that’s pretty typical where they do.
Speaking of which:
Who Should Pay for Health Benefits? Unions start shouldering the burden of medical costs.
By the way, for all those in favor of socialized/single payer, or whatever term you want, medicine. The Catholic teaching that health care is a fundamental right, it’s not that “free” health care is. If healthcare makes one bankrupt under certain circumstances, that is not a violation as such, only the provision that you not be turned away. The doctor has a right to be paid for his services, just as the farmer does, even though he may not deny them in times of need.
God Bless,
Matt
Matt:
You seem to misunderstand some basic points. Health care is never free. Somebody pays for it, whether through taxes, levies on employers, or by the individual themselves. It is a fact that the cost of health care (measured as spending on health care per patient, in PPP dollars for cross-country compatibility) is far less in single payer countries (by a factor of 2).
Also remember that single payer only means cutting out the middleman– the profit-making insurance company. The government acts as the sole insurer. The medical provider would see little difference, as reimbursement now comes from the single payer, instead of a plethora of private insurance companies. The doctor will indeed be paid for his services.
Matt,
The Bible forbids taking away a person’s means of making a living or of staying alive, in payment for anything.
Bankruptcy is an interesting notion, since the Bible required the forgiving of all debts periodically. Both the pro and anti bankruptcy ideas seem to fail to think with God on this one.
Morning Minion,
It’s also a fact that people get less health care in single payer countries. Less surgery, fewer bypasses, less diagnostics. MRIs are routinely denied or greatly delayed even for those with suspected cancer and long delays for heart bypasses in Canada of roughly 17 weeks. Granted our system is far from ideal but single payer is worse : far worse. Here you are treated but may be bankrupted in Canada you may not get treated at all and die on the wait list. It costs less in socialized states because the State ration’s medical treatment. Using the Soviet bread line as a model for medicine is nuts.
Let’s see: loss of personal freedom, plus increased government intrusion plus health rationing versus lower cost. That’s a deal I can do without. The only reason people propose this is because the socialization of medicine makes people overly dependent on the State and concretizes leftist power. It’s not about medicine it’s about power.
Besides lowering costs in the US is easy all we need do is three things 1) have real medical tort reform 2) change the tax laws that punish private insurance 3) institute real Medical Savings Accounts that act like IRAs. These changes would make it easier for individuals to make their own choices. It’s a funny thing we call freedom, you might have heard of it. All three reforms are vehemently opposed by liberals because liberals only support choices that allow death or murder.
Not like I have an opinion or anything : D
Memphis Aggie,
IRAs haven’t replaced social security last I checked. It’s funny that you bring them up. They are a great way for the upper part of society to accrue tax advantaged investments. The poor can’t afford to contribute – 401(k)s were created to try and address this – and are blamed for not putting enough aside. Your first point has already been addressed ably in this thread, your second point is just plain silly.
BTW, the anecdotal stories of people who could have died almost never turn out to be true. There are a number of things where your outcome will not be effected if you start now or 6 months from now. I cannot remember the last anecdote I read where the doctors agreed that the surgery that could be done in Canada was actually deemed urgent by doctors interviewed for the stories. Of course a lot of these sob stories don’t even ask for medical opinions and treat the person’s story as gospel.
“are you sure your employer doesn’t subsidize it? that’s pretty typical where they do.”
That’s certainly possible. Even probable, I would say. It IS at least a nominally Christian company (making mention of “honoring God” in their mission statement). I hope this is partly what has motivated them, if the are subsidizing the health plan.
And again, just what Christians ought to be doing, especially Catholics.
MZ ,
I don’t trust my government to make medical decisions for me and to force me into whatever categories. It’s a freedom issue. Socialized medicine is government control and loss of freedom. Try and refute that.
People have a right to be rich (we are still free) and not all rich folk are inherantly evil just because they have money (Judge not etc). As for IRAs or 401ks they are extraordinarily common to the middle class and exist primarily to help them. The truly rich have other devices at their disposal (IRA have maximum inputs etc)
If you doubt the numbers: research it yourself. I don’t expect to convince you – if you support the policy at all it is because you see the world radically differently than I do.
MZ
“Plain silly” is not reasoned argument. Care to address which point exactly you find silly? I’ve had a lifetime of experience of condescending lefties who always seem to know what the State should do for the rest of us little people.
How is the government confiscation of my money by force followed by the severe restriction of the medical market not a loss of freedom? Address the loss of choice issue head on and I’ll take you seriously.
As long as we’re tossing around anecdotal evidence…
1) My boyfriend and his family live in Canada. Since I have known him, his mother has had two cancer surgeries and his father was hospitalized (and eventually died). The care they received when they were at the teaching hospital in London was exemplary; the hospital in their home city of 50,000 or so didn’t even have a staff cardiologist. It may be that the quality of care varies based on where you are.
However, they had no unreasonable delays for care, and his father’s eventual death was of pulmonary hypertension. No doctor yet has told me that it would have been easier to treat if he hadn’t spent the week or two in the small hospital first. Again, this is purely anecdotal.
That said, I understand there are significant and growing doctor shortages in Canada, particularly among family doctors, because of the billing caps imposed by the government. Doctors find they can work fewer hours for more money over here in the States, and over they come.
2. My current doctor – and most doctors I’ve gone to – can see me within 24 hours if I get sick during the week. However, when I was living in midtown Detroit and was limited by transportation and coverage issues, I more or less gave up on seeing the doctor. My doctor was within walking distance of my home and work, but I would have to wait a minimum of two weeks for an appointment (and then wait a minimum of an hour past my appointment time to actually see her). I remember one time I was having severe dizzy spells and vertigo, and called her office to see if she could see me. No – two weeks. I explained what the issue was, and the receptionist told me that if I needed to be seen in less than two weeks I should go to the ER. I was pretty sure it wasn’t life-threatening, so I decided not to go.
—
On a more fundamental level, I don’t know whether I’d support “socialized” (or “single-payer”) medicine. The idea of everyone having coverage is appealing, to be sure, but I think the questions of what would be covered, who would administer it, etc., would need to be more satisfactorily addressed before I’d seriously consider it.
I mean, this is the government we’re talking about. The folks who can’t seem to effectively manage Social Security, public education, or national security…are going to be in charge of our health care?!? Yikes. It’s like the Scripture reading from yesterday: one who has been faithful with a small charge can be trusted with a larger one. Call me cynical, but I don’t see our government as having been particularly good stewards of what we’ve already entrusted them with. (But then, maybe that’s just because I’m from Detroit.)
Nice scriptural point Kasia. By the way I grew up in Detroit and thinking about what city has become just makes me sad.
Memphis Aggie:
You should refrain from arguing based on anecdote. Looking at the statistics, there is no evidence that single payer systems ration more based on time than the US, and they most certain ration a lot less based on cost.
And what is this silliness about the government making decisions? Single payer simply means the government is the insurer. Do you really think your human dignity is greater respected by a callous profit-making insurance company than a government insurer? Please!
As for tort reform– sure, you will save half of one percent of health care costs, but go for it!
Drug companies are there to make money.
Yes, a percentage of the price (i.e., mark-up) is comprised of an amount due to R&D; however, overall, they are there to make money.
Even if patents were enforced in every country they had an issued patent in, this would not result in the priced reduction of drugs that you keep claiming.
Yes it would.
Because if every country paid R&D, the profits would increase, the competition would increase, and therefore the prices would go down. The monopoly you cite is only of that drug.
MM
“And what is this silliness about the government making decisions? Single payer simply means the government is the insurer. Do you really think your human dignity is greater respected by a callous profit-making insurance company than a government insurer? Please!”
Just substitute Government for “profit-making insurance company” and you may get my point. I don’t expect any stranger to respect my human dignity , but a State revels in abortions is not trustworthy.
And it’s silly (today’s lame refutation I guess) to suggest that limiting the market to one state run insurer is not a loss of freedom. Actually it’s simply disingenuous. I want there to be many many insurers who I expect will perform well, not out of my interest but out of the discipline of the market and effects of competition. There are innumerable examples where the market works. I don’t need statistics to make the point. Further the state can and does regulate insurers, while there is very little control on the State itself. History shows that the State can not be trusted, tyranny is the norm and the instinct to control runs in many ordinary people.
The monopoly you cite is only of that drug.
Not necessarily — it depends on how broad the claim set is.
There are subtle points you keep avoiding regarding this issue.
For example, how can one simply denounce single-payer systems and single-provider systems under the same unbrella of “socialized medicine”?
Things which switch the the cost of something from an individual to the community are socialistic; when it’s medical, they are socialized medicine. It’s simply the language.
labrialumn – I feel no need to respond to your accusation that I’m a liar. I would like to point out that folks tend to see flaws in others which are in themselves, and leave it at that.
Kasia — Exactly. Look at Social Security, think about the DMV, look at Medicare and the *eternal* problems coming out of it… and ask if you want a mix of the three. I’ve lived in four different states of this lovely nation, and not a single one would I want in charge of my health care.
Mary- Exactly. When there is profit, there is motive to work. If you take away the profit and try to get folks to work… well, they tend not to happen.
What really drives up the cost of drugs is the FDA. It costs hundreds of millions and years to get a drug through and those years are lost to the patent. Drug companies survive on patents. All of there very expensive research and the thousands of chemicals that fail to become drugs are supported by the few that do. Tort liability and criminal law should be enough to regulate drug companies (I’m not opposed to tort law , just it’s excesses). Good drugs that are not perfect are delayed or shelved because of the cost and specialized drugs for small markets are not developed because they can not be profitable in the years alloted by patent. No new drugs have been designed specifically for children with cancer for example because no drug can hope to pay for itself over the life of a patent given the small market of potential patients.
The FDA allows us safe drugs (most of the time) but also far fewer drugs. Many good drugs that are helpful to some people (but may be dangerous for a rare few with distinct genetics) are prevented from being used even though the overwhelming majority would benefit. It’s a hidden cost of government excess (Dr. Sowell has some articles about it).
It’s true that we spend more per capita on health care than most other countries. I don’t think this is because we have a partially private system. Why do I say that? Well, because we do have government paid health care for the poor and the elderly, and it is hugely expensive. In fact, we spend more per capita on Medicaid and Medicare alone than Canada does on its entire system. Unless you think the government would spend less insuring everyone in this country than they do insuring 27% now, the fact that we spend a lot on health care is not a compelling reason for adopting single payer.
I think we spend more because we expect more. We want access to everything, all the time.
Mary- Exactly. When there is profit, there is motive to work. If you take away the profit and try to get folks to work… well, they tend not to happen.
Foxfire,
Do you and Mary even know what you’re talking about?
The mark-up in prices already contains the R&D costs. Thus, anybody who buys the drug is already paying part of the R&D costs.
As far as patents go, the patent is basically a legalized monopoly allowing the company to exclude competitors for a period of 20 years (if we’re talking about a U.S. patent or one from a PCT-contracting state).
Therefore, if given the full extent of patent enforcement, drug companies would more likely increase the prices for the drug than reduce it since only they could produce such a drug for a period of 20 years.
The US spends far more per capita than any other country on health. Yet 1 in 6 of its citizens are not properly covered, and perhaps unsurprisingly the overall outcomes are far from the best. It does not get what it pays for.
Drug company profits are an issue, but they make profits throughout the world not just the US and are regulated by organizations similar to the FDA in most developed countries, so I don’t think this explains why the US spend the most on health yet does not get value for money.
On the question of administrative costs, the most comprehensive comparative study I am aware of is Woolhandler et al 2003 linked in my post of Sep 21 5:01PM. This finds that private insurance companies are much more admin-heavy than government systems. Yes, I was surprised too, but the facts must take precedence even over well-entrenched presuppositions. My above post suggests some reasons. Perhaps there are also economies of scale and uniformity of procedures. More quantified comparisons here especially p8.
Where is the money being wasted? 30% on admin by insurance companies?
I think the main losers of any change to the US system will be the insurance companies. Why else did they spend so many millions opposing Hillary’s previous reforms? Was it simply a public-spirited charitable act to expose an “obviously flawed” plan, or did they think they would lose out financially? NB I don’t know enough about that plan to comment on its merits, I’m just following the money.
Although Morning’s Minion and I do not see completely eye-to-eye on health care, I realize that his points and challenges have gone largely unanswered in this thread. Calling MM “rude” or “socialist” is not an argument as it does not even engage his rather cogent presentation. Quite frankly, I’d like to hear Jimmy Akin’s response not only because MM directly questions him, but also because Jimmy posited some pretty hot assertions that he has not backed-up with data or honest economic analysis. Like MM, I recommend that Jimmy either substantiate his claims or refrain from commenting on economics or public policy. It’s going to take some real research in books other than the Catechism or Canon Law.
Memphis Aggie,
You really need to read-up on single-payer systems. Your claim that they entail the loss of freedom is completely unsubstantiated and appears to me to be based on either a total (yet groundless) suspicion or a total stereotype. Either way, you’re just flat out wrong about the government making medical decisions for you. If you want to cling to your false definitions of single-payer and depend on anecdotes for medical facts, then by all means do so. But just realize that those who actually understand how a single-payer system works will spot the farce.
Perhaps you could substantiate your claims with facts, stats and analysis? Shouting the same stories over and over do not strengthen your claims.
Memphis Aggie claims “I don’t need statistics to make the point.” Actually, you do. A laissez-faire ideology combined with some anecdotal evidence (kind of like the original John Stossel piece of nonsense) will not cut it.
policratus,
perhaps you could explain a proposed single-payer system that does not entail a loss of freedom. Under my healthcare plan I am covered for exactly what I want to pay for, and not covered for what I am not. I have complete freedom. Nobody makes me pay for services I don’t want, or stops me from buying services I do want (provided they are legal).
I give what I can to my fellow man, but I reserve the right to chose my own medical care.
Under a single payer-system, I will certainly lose this freedom (or at least be forced to pay for those who chose to avail themselves of it). That is a loss of freedom.
Explain a system that does not entail at least minimally that loss of freedom.
I don’t know what BIASED instute your figures about administrative costs come from, but I don’t need to be a statistician to know that statistics can be made to provide any answer you want them too. It is quite obvious to everyone with a brain that government is not the most efficient or compassionate provider of services. As has been argued, while a private company is not necessarily more compassionate, it is forced by market pressures to provide a certain level of quality and efficiency. The less government interference the more efficient will the marketplace be.
Why is this argument always about insurance? I don’t think we should be making such an absolute ocnnection, health care is the issue, and insurance is not required for health care.
God Bless,
Matt
MM,
you don’t buy reason and logic? At least those are protected from distortion and bias, as your statistics are loaded with.
God Bless,
Matt
Esau – Yes, we do, but you don’t seem to know what we’re talking about; when you buy the stuff *from those who did the R&D* they make money. If you don’t, they don’t get their investment back. If they don’t get a patient, then the vultures– those who do *no* R&D– take the newly developed drug, make it and sell it without the overhead of R&D.
The mark-up in prices already contains the R&D costs. Thus, anybody who buys the drug is already paying part of the R&D costs.
Not in many countries.
Canada and many EU countries calculate a price based on manufacturing price, add a slight mark-up, and tell the companies, “You pay this price or we will license your patent for a smaller profit for you.”
perhaps you could explain a proposed single-payer system that does not entail a loss of freedom. Under my healthcare plan I am covered for exactly what I want to pay for, and not covered for what I am not. I have complete freedom. Nobody makes me pay for services I don’t want, or stops me from buying services I do want (provided they are legal).
I’m glad you have enough money to choose the level of care to buy.
The UK NHS is essentially a single-payer system. There is no law preventing anyone from ‘going private’ and directly buying medical care – a minority of people do just that.
Canada and many EU countries calculate a price based on manufacturing price, add a slight mark-up, and tell the companies, “You pay this price or we will license your patent for a smaller profit for you.”
Mary,
Thank you for the clarification!
I was wondering where exactly you were coming from!
From what I had remembered (having attended some conferences in the distant past for class) pharma companies dedicate a percentage of the markup to recoup/devote investment in/to R&D.
Yet, there have been times when even pharma itself skimps out on R&D altogether, unfortunately.
Truthfully, this is – as Mark Shea would say – a notch or two above my pay grade. I don’t think the world is going to come to an end either way. If the government takes over health care, I expect we will muddle through.
We might come up with a one-payer system that was not the end of Western democracy. I think we might also get another insanely bloated bureaucracy.
The problem is so huge and complex that the two seemingly “polar opposite” solutions are really not as far apart as it might seem. The current system is already greatly enmeshed in government bureaucracy, and a cradle-to-grave gub’ment program would probably bear some similarities to what we have now. Neither system is going to do everything the way people would like it to be done. The current system has flaws, and (I’m just *guessing*) a National Health Plan will end up just as flawed, but in different ways.
What tips me toward leaving it in the hands of the private sector (especially the Church) is that I just flat don’t trust the government with EVEN A LITTLE more power over the private lives of it’s citizens. Income tax began at a tiny fraction of the current confiscatory rates, but the tendency of government is to always to grab more… more money, more power, more control.
This is why, regardless of perhaps SLIGHTLY better or worse public health stats (and I can’t believe the change would be much in either direction… culture plays a huge role, and what works in Germany may not work here, at all, at all) I just flat don’t think ceding more personal autonomy to the government will be a good thing down the road.
I wouldn’t have figured you for such a big fan of consolidating government power over the citizenry, MM.
…but the tendency of government is to always to grab more… more money, more power, more control.
Actually, that’s the result of a certain party who is more often than not FOR BIG GOVERNMENT without realizing just what harm the ‘little guy’ can suffer at the hands of such!
If you can’t trust the government with healthcare can you trust the government with nuclear weapons and all the tax spent on state-run defence?
There may be a cultural difference here. At the risk of gross oversimplification, many Americans distrust their government and want it to do as little as possible. The US Constitution seems to be set up to resist action. Most Europeans expect their governments to do things for them and their systems seem more designed to delegate the government to act on their behalf and be voted out if they don’t deliver.
Just my $20 worth – health care inflation you know 🙂
Matt-a bit belated, but I appreciate your thoughts for my daughter and you make some good points re Hilary and increased abortions. Abortions are already largely subsidized by our government; I agree that socialized medicine would be disastrous for that reason.
Tim
“If you’re going to argue that the government ought to be subsidizing people’s diets, the logical outcome — assuming you also support socialized medicine — is a socialized food supply.”
I asn’t arguing anything, just tossing out some thoughts. However I appreciate your comments as an excellent example of reductio ad absurdam.
oops, sorry, I meant Tom Simon.
Leo- Yes, the US does distrust government. There’s some very interesting comparisons of the philosophies that formed the various revolutions, with the US’s boiling down to “People are jerks, but we can work with this” and others– such as France– boiling down to “People are naturally good, the Elite is bad.” (Seeing as I’ve not had a real philosophy class yet, nor a very good history class, I’m not quite sure of how true these theories are historically.)
If you start out with the more Hobbes approach, you’re protected from the bad folks who, as demonstrated by my freshly robbed car, are definitely around. Seeing as power corrupts, it’s a good idea to make sure that the people always have enough power that, if the government manages to piss them *all* off, they have more than the government, yet the government also needs enough power to protect the various groups against the small groups of bad people.
When you look at things like military defense– which is very carefully regulated to make it less usable against the people– it’s not really something you can do on a by-person basis.
Food, you can go person by person.
Health care, you can go person by person.
Education, that’s a big fight. The Government can do it, but it’s really not very high quality.
The Judicial branch– not really something you can do on a per-person basis. (what crook is going to PAY to have the law enforced against him?)
Thus, I’m willing to trust a Democratic Republic with nukes and a lot of money to defend a huge chunk of the world, but I wouldn’t trust them with my health care, given a choice.
Frankly, I’m not planning on trusting them with my children’s education.
Abortion is supposed to be big business, where does the money come from?
Don’t insurance companies subsidize abortions too?
If we buy from a company that includes abortion in its employee health plan, are we not funding abortion?
“If you can’t trust the government with healthcare can you trust the government with nuclear weapons and all the tax spent on state-run defence?”
Trust the government with nuclear weapons? You mean, like THIS?;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/05/AR2007090500762.html
See, the government is made up of people, and people are fallen creatures and, well, you know… I’m sure splitting the atom sounded like a good idea at the TIME…
Defense IS one of those things that the government is supposed to be doing. One of the only really justifiable things, actually. But you’re asking if I trust the decision making at the top (political) level on *either* side of the aisle? Not especially.
Foxfier, you make some interesting points but
Health care, you can go person by person.
I would add only if you are very rich, otherwise one has to rely on some collective provision whether insurance private/work/state compulsory or taxation. Universal coverage is in my view a minimum social justice requirement. But there we come full circle.
Leo– I am not very rich. I am able to go person by person, although I have catastrophic insurance– same as on my car. Thus, you can go person by person.
Ritika,
212-329-2300
Nicole,
212-947-9700 ext 7112
Leo,
The UK NHS is essentially a single-payer system. There is no law preventing anyone from ‘going private’ and directly buying medical care – a minority of people do just that.
Umm, and I don’t have to fund everyone else’s “single-payer” system?
Don’t insurance companies subsidize abortions too?
I don’t believe most insurance companies fund abortions except when there is a real threat to the womans life, correct me if I’m wrong here. I do know that PP does not take insurance, cash on the barrel, so I suspect most abortions are privately paid for.
If we buy from a company that includes abortion in its employee health plan, are we not funding abortion?
Yes. In the remote material sense. And if it’s possible to avoid it one is morally required to do so.
I would add only if you are very rich, otherwise one has to rely on some collective provision whether insurance private/work/state compulsory or taxation. Universal coverage is in my view a minimum social justice requirement. But there we come full circle.
That makes no sense, if you look at the average health care costs currently spent, it is not out of the reach of a significant portion of the middle class. As has been mentioned a catastrophic coverage plan is very low cost, and the day to day expenses can be handled quite well by the typical family.
Mater,
Abortions are already largely subsidized by our government; I agree that socialized medicine would be disastrous for that reason.
That’s not true, most abortions are not paid for or subsidized by the government, however, abortion facilities often recieve government funds for other services such as cancer and VD screenings, contraceptives, etc.
God Bless,
Matt
I have catastrophic insurance
catastrophic coverage plan is very low cost
yes, this provision is collective, unless one is very rich.
Leo,
I have catastrophic insurance
catastrophic coverage plan is very low cost
yes, this provision is collective, unless one is very rich.
can you explain what this means? Isn’t insurance collective unless it’s ‘self-insurance’ which is really not insurance?
Thinking back to the comments on the amount of $ the US spends on healthcare (“sick care” as my Dr. husband would say)…
Yes, the US does spend a lot on healthcare, but part of that has to do with Americans expecting EVERYTHING to be done for us and for our loved ones, no matter what the liklihood of success/the cost (provided we have insurance/$). Everyone thinks they or their loved one will beat the impossible odds.
Is this bad? From a moral standpoint, I think generally not, because it doesn’t push us down the slipperly slope into denying people care when they have a decent chance of improvement. From a financial / time & resource management standpoint, yes, it can be. We do have a limited number of doctors and a limited number of hospital beds, so the time doctors spend doing unlikely-to-suceed procedures & waiting to see results is time they cannot care for other patients.
According to Dr. husband’s med school class on comparative health systems (I am making no claims for the fair treatment of other systems here), the alternative is to ration healthcare–through waiting periods and through out-and-out screening by age/chance of success. Per his example from class fitted to our family’s facts, my 80-something grandma would have had next-to-no chance of getting a coronary bypass with totally socialized healthcare, since there would be plenty of better (younger) candidates to receive the time/resources necessary for the operation. So she wouldn’t have lived until 93 and she wouldn’t have died happy, months after having danced at her granddaughter’s wedding.
And on a personal “good grief!” note, can people please stop saying how rich doctors are?? That was true in the 80s and is true now for super-specialists + those who do elective procedures, but not for the majority of doctors (esp family physicians / GPs). They certainly aren’t hurting for $, but they aren’t disgustingly wealthy either. We have 5-6 years of my husband making a pitiful salary as a resident/fellow all the while amassing even more interest on his huge student loans and at some pt in that period having to start paying them back. This is with me laughing at the supposed “80-hr max” for his workweek. Hah! I’m sorry, but after living with a med student/resident, I can say they go through a decade or so of absolute mental and physical hell to come out on the other side with a crushing burden of debt. So I don’t know when this mythical $ is going to start rolling in, but I’m pretty sure it won’t be until we’re paying our future children’s college loans.
Oh, and by the way…there’s a “reform” plan afoot that would stop Medicare from paying residents’ salaries (federal gov’t pays their salaries + more to the residency programs to cover the extra time, personnel, & equipment used for teaching them). So where would that $ come from? From the hospitals with residency programs (those that wouldn’t cut back or drop theirs), or rather, it would be factored in to the cost of hospital care, further contributing to that problem + the above-mentioned crushing burden of resident debt when their salaries are cut. The AMA got this tabled for now, but it will probably come back at some point…
“Memphis Aggie claims “I don’t need statistics to make the point.” Actually, you do. A laissez-faire ideology combined with some anecdotal evidence (kind of like the original John Stossel piece of nonsense) will not cut it.”
It’s the point about freedom that does not need a statistical defense (as if you’d accept any stat I gave you anyway). What part of single payer don’t you get? It’s the “Single” that I object to. The government prevents competition by law and it requires that everyone buy into the system, again by law. That’s elementary logic and a clear loss of personal choice. How effective the system is does not enter into the question of the loss of freedom.
Social Security for example is a loss of freedom and a regressive tax. It’s not voluntary it’s forced on you “for your own good” by our want-to-be nanny state. It benefits some, but the rate of return is poor and for those at my age it’s doubtful I’ll ever break even let alone realize the rate of return I’d get from an ordinary CD.
Policratus – “Either way, you’re just flat out wrong about the government making medical decisions for you.”
Nonsense on stilts – the government already makes many medical decisions for me. They legalize some drugs while preventing others from reaching the market (FDA) they certify doctors and regulate all aspects of medical care. Through tort and medical boards they define all standard practices. The high instance of C section deliveries of newborns arose in direct response to lawsuits – not best medical guidelines. You’re not living in the real world if you think that government regulation doesn’t already influence your treatment. Once it’s the lone insurer it will make those decisions for you – in it’s own interest – based on cost.
Euthanasia is allowed (even promoted) in Scandinavian countries. You don’t think that if you’re old and feeble and unable to defend your life some bureaucrat won’t decide to empty your bed – because it’s for your own good. If you’re honest you have to admit the possibility exists. These rationalization are everywhere already. It’s the culture of death that sees nothing wrong with killing infants and little wrong in “mercifully” killing the elderly.
You’re faith in government solutions is truly outside reality. Like others have pointed out those fabulous government successes like our public schools or the post office, which only reformed in response to outside competition from Fed Ex. In the absence of vigorous competition companies and governments become corrupt. Democracy only works a little better than other systems because it divides power and creates a market of votes. In the absence of a credible opposition, either party in this or any country would grow corrupt over time. It is human nature to arrogantly impose your will on other men – socialized medicine is just one example.
Still paging Dr. Akin to answer MM’s points…
Policraticus,
Jimmy Akin cannot and does not read every comment in the comboxes. You need to email him directly if you want him to address an issue, per Da Rulz.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
You don’t think that if you’re old and feeble and unable to defend your life some bureaucrat won’t decide to empty your bed – because it’s for your own good.
That bureaucrat might be from a private insurer doing this on cost grounds when the money/cover runs out/becomes prohibitive. I can imagine a lower cost critical/terminal cover which only pays out for a certain number of years, then …
Leo,
You’re right a private insurer might do it too. At least if there’s one private insurer there will be many and the best least cruel insurer will earn a good reputation and I’ll be able to choose it (hopefully). If the government is the one and only choice I’ll be truly stuck.
Leo,
the other key issue is that the private insurer does not have the authority of the government behind them. It does not have the power to force the medical facility to vacate the bed other than through non-payment, unless the insurer owns the facility.
God Bless,
Matt
Memphis Aggie, do you have any evidence that this forced euthanasia on cost grounds is being imposed by any democratic government?
I think a corporation is more likely to want to dispose of the uneconomic than a democracy where decent people can vote out such a government.
The “least cruel insurers” would would probably have to recover the extra costs by charging you an extra premium – if you could afford it. The same potential protection would apply in socialized systems – which all allow supplementary private insurance. Even in those systems eg the UK NHS, the government is not “the one and only choice”.
Because of changes in legislation and attitudes, the time may come when we have to put our money where our pro-life mouths are to support free Catholic hospices for those at risk of poverty euthanasia. This witness may be forced on all who are prolife whether they live in a socialized system or privatized system.
No evidence just speculation – it doesn’t matter what “ground s” forced euthansia is practiced does it? I’m sure if asked they’d give some fine sounding nonsense. I wouldn’t believe them anyway and it doesn’t matter what their excuse is.
Also you’re right the NHS in England is not exclusive, but the punitive taxes required to sustain it are not voluntary and effectively prevent most ordinary Brits from paying for private insurance.
Inocencio,
Despite what “Da Rulz” may say, I can tell you first-hand that Jimmy reads these comments, and he always replies when his competence is put on the line. I imagine this topic, however, is a bit too big for him.
Policraticus,
I did not say he does not read the comboxes. I said he cannot and does not read every comment. So if you have such competence in this area I would imagine you would have no qualms about emailing him directly as he invites people to do. Rather than paging him through the combox.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Poli – Whose blog is it anyway?
Policraticus: You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Inocencio–Akin and I have exchanged emails in the past. But what benefit is to be derived for the public if our correspondance remains private? It’s a public post, and so a public clarification is not an unreasonable request.
Memphis Aggie–Jimmy Akin’s. It’s in the domain name.
SDG–Believe me, SDG, I know quite well about that which I speak. Having had my own personal interaction with Akin, I am well aware of his inner need to defend his competence, which is in constant tension with the limitations of his knowledge. You can take all the shots you like at me, but it won’t make Jimmy’s sad assertions on healthcare any more cogent. I await his response.
But what benefit is to be derived for the public if our correspondance remains private? It’s a public post, and so a public clarification is not an unreasonable request…
Having had my own personal interaction with Akin, I am well aware of his inner need to defend his competence, which is in constant tension with the limitations of his knowledge. You can take all the shots you like at me, but it won’t make Jimmy’s sad assertions on healthcare any more cogent. I await his response.
Policraticus,
Although you may be making some profound points by your own esteem, would it be so much to ask that you rein in your arrogance and condescending behaviour.
You might be “God’s Gift to the World” whose presence here we are all so highly honored by; however, if it is our respect and ear you are seeking, you have best humble yourself in that regard.
Poli – my question was a rhetorical.
Does the temperature always rise at this time of day?
Leo,
put our money where our pro-life mouths are
some of us already do instead of depending on the state to do so.
Of course, our ability to do so will be more limited if so many of those “good” social programs you probably advocate are provided by the state, because someone has to foot the bill, as always it will be the hard-working middle class because the rich don’t really suffer from taxes in the end anyway, Bill Gates doesn’t sell his house if a 10% tax is added to Microsoft profits, he lays of 10% of the workforce.
God Bless,
Matt
Policraticus,
You are correct public clarification is not an unreasonable request. And I would guess that over at your blog you have made your position known. So emailing Jimmy, per Da Rulz, if you are really interested in his opinion is a simple courtesy.
But posting a comment in the combox “paging” Jimmy is childish when you have a pretty good idea that he will not see it.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
I am so surprised to see so much resistance to universal health care from Christians. First, we do have a moral obligation to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. We are the richest country around, and there is really no excuse for our allowing people to die or even to live without access to medical care.
Apart from the obvious moral arguments, the other arguments I see which go something like “I shouldn’t have to pay for his treatments” seem to totally forget that he would also be paying for your treatments. The difference is that the uninsured would have access for perhaps the first time in many cases. Unless we pay for our exact cost of health care today (which we do not) then the argument that we would be paying for others health care (which is not a bad thing!) doesn’t really hold water. Many years, I pay more for health insurance than I would have paid for the cost of paying for my medical expenses direct, but other years I exceed that amount. The overage amount which I pay on the years when my expenses are less than my premiums go to pay for those who have exceeded, and to profits for the health insurance company. This year, over 10% of my gross income went to pay for health care insurance expenses. I cannot imagine I’d be paying more than that if we eliminate the profitability of health care, but even if we did, at least I would feel better knowing that my outrageous bills went to helping people live, rather than to paying inflated executive salaries.
..someone has to foot the bill, as always it will be the hard-working middle class because the rich don’t really suffer from taxes in the end anyway
Matt,
You hit it right on the nail!!!
That’s one some folks don’t understand!
They want this, that from the government.
However, this is the very reason why middle and low income families are suffering so much.
In the end, they become so heavily overburdened by all these taxes that are the result of all these so-called benefits a certain party wants the government to provide to all its citizens.
It seems that the party that keeps espousing all such ‘benefits’ supposedly for the sake of all Americans are the only ones who truly benefit by all the good PR generated as a result; but it is the middle and low income folks that suffer in the end and why most of these families tend to end up in poverty after being run into it by all the heavy taxation that’s generated.
Your assurance carries no weight; in the matter of Jimmy Akin my knowledge considerably exceeds yours. You are mistaken in what you think you know.
“I am so surprised to see so much resistance to universal health care from Christians…”
I am certainly not against universal health care, I just don’t trust the government to do it. There ARE other avenues, and implying that holding an opinion against a government health care bureaucracy is inherently un-Christian is ridiculous.
Why not, just for a minute, assume that someone beside yourself might carry a little genuine concern for the poor? Holy cow, look what the welfare state has done to poor families… all with the best intentions, of course. I don’t see anywhere in scripture or in Church teaching where the Christian’s first response to human suffering is supposed to be “Why doesn’t the government DO something about this?”.
Tim,
You are seriously exaggerating my argument by implying I stated that “no one but me cared for the poor.” Are you capable of intellectually honest discussion on this matter? I think you are. In the first response to my points, you were building straw men and making cheap arguments. I’d be a little bit embarrassed by that if I were you.
It’d be interested in having a real discussion with you about universal health care if you’re interested in keeping it on the topic of universal health care.
J,
“I am so surprised to see so much resistance to universal health care from Christians…”
That is a straw man, because the question is not about providing health care, but how that health care is to be funded. In any event, we know you mean funded, so we’ll accept that and read that your implication is that it’s un-Christian to oppose government funded universal health care. And that is arrogance.
God Bless,
Matt
Your assurance carries no weight; in the matter of Jimmy Akin my knowledge considerably exceeds yours. You are mistaken in what you think you know.
See, and the whole time I thought this thread was about Akin’s post on health care. I had no idea it was going to be hijacked so you could flex your acquaintance muscles! While the playground talk (“I know more than you do!”) is cute, it is irrelevant. But to indulge you, perhaps in light of the excess of knowledge you have on the “matter” of Akin you could recommend some research time to him outside the Catechism and Canon Law. Apologist, yes. Economist and theologian…well, he’s got a lot of work to do.
the punitive taxes required to sustain [the UK NHS] are not voluntary and effectively prevent most ordinary Brits from paying for private insurance.
I don’t think that US conservatives understand how popular the principle of socialized medicine is in the UK – even amongst UK Conservatives. Most Brits don’t want to have to pay private insurance they want socialized medicine (para 3 of my post of Sep 21,10:46).
Sure, taxation is not voluntary, but is the tax for the NHS relatively punitive or burdensome compared with US costs?
The NHS costs about 9% of UK GDP, US healthcare costs 15% of GDP (private + public).
Therefore the oversimplified average family in the UK pays a ‘punitive’ 9% for health, but in the US ‘only’ 15%.
I am certainly not against universal health care, I just don’t trust the government to do it. There ARE other avenues, and implying that holding an opinion against a government health care bureaucracy is inherently un-Christian is ridiculous.
Why not, just for a minute, assume that someone beside yourself might carry a little genuine concern for the poor? Holy cow, look what the welfare state has done to poor families… all with the best intentions, of course. I don’t see anywhere in scripture or in Church teaching where the Christian’s first response to human suffering is supposed to be “Why doesn’t the government DO something about this?”.
Tim J.
AMEN, brutha!
Leo,
That popularity claim doesn’t jibe with the constant critiques of NHS I read in British newspapers.
As for the numbers – great lets lower everyone taxes. I’m not to pleased with mine.
As for UK “conservatives” like David Cameron I think conservatism is nearly dead in the UK as is The Anglican communion. They name their kids Mohamed, build huge mosques, boycott Israel and turn blind eyes to radical sheiks. They put cameras on every corner and confiscate all guns and require citizens to leave robbers alone when they ransack their own house in their presence. Oh yeah – let’s copy that.
Memphis Aggie,
The critiques of the NHS are not about the principle of a socialized health system but about things like quality of service, method of administration and possible erosions of the socialized principle.
“The National Health Service is safe in our hands” Margaret Thatcher 1983 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1888158.stm
Seeing as it’s popular to set out links to famous folks… this is the site of a bioethicist.
You know, one of those crazy folks who thinks human exceptional has something to it.
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2005/04/dutch-would-have-dehydrated-terri-even.html
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2007/07/tell-this-to-michael-moore.html
So we have a well known apologist *and* a bioethicist who are pretty much standing here, waiving their hands and yelling “WHOE!!! Slow down, hold up, we’ve got a problem here.”
Frankly, if I disagreed with that, I’d probably try to find out what was making them so squirrelly. It’s only reasonable.
“Tim,
You are seriously exaggerating my argument by implying I stated that “no one but me cared for the poor.”…
Okay. I was composing on the fly. Sorry for the cheap shot. Your implication was, though, that there is something un-Christian about opposition to state-run universal health care. That does come off as incredibly arrogant and condescending and makes it sound as if you think those who disagree with you are motivated by a lack of charity. It rankles.
“Are you capable of intellectually honest discussion on this matter?”
Yes. I notice you didn’t address my point, though, which is that there are other avenues to health care for the poor beside creating a titanic government health bureaucracy. The Church ought to be taking the lead, but of course, we CAN abdicate the responsibility to the government if we choose to. It’s definitely one way to do it.
“In the first response to my points, you were building straw men and making cheap arguments.”
We’ve dealt with A straw man. Give me a hint on the cheap argument (whatever that means).
“I’d be a little bit embarrassed by that if I were you.”
Okay.
“It’d be interested in having a real discussion with you about universal health care if you’re interested in keeping it on the topic of universal health care.”
Splendid.
Leo,
I’ll concede that you are correct- the UK is solidly socialist and they no doubt agree with the concept on principle. I’m am in the other camp and I disagree with the imposition of such a system on principle – that principle being freedom. However the efficacy of a system is evidence of its value and convinces many. If I thought it could work well I would lose interest in opposing it.
“Quality of service, method of administration and possible erosions of the socialized principle.”
Isn’t that pretty much the whole bloody program? They’re upset because it’s not working… but they like the idea! We should copy it! Never mind that they don’t think it’s working and they think that the way it’s run is bad. (could that be because the government is running it?) Reminds me of some chats I’ve had about communism– it’s great on paper, add people and it falls all apart.
Oddly, I haven’t seen any complaints in my reading by folks who are complaining about socialized health care about the lack of socialized whatever in it; I see that offered by folks trying to defend the system from folks who can’t get vital health care.
Upset because it’s not working
nice semantic shift, it can mean
not working at all – in which case people would object to the founding principles.
or
not working as well as it should. ie they agree with the principle of socialized medicine and debate how to improve it – like they debate how to improve democracy.
Let’s see. What are the “principles” of socialism anyway? Punish those that work and earn and reward the indolent and excuse the criminal. Do it all by force and call it charity.
Tim Said:
“Okay. I was composing on the fly. Sorry for the cheap shot. Your implication was, though, that there is something un-Christian about opposition to state-run universal health care. That does come off as incredibly arrogant and condescending and makes it sound as if you think those who disagree with you are motivated by a lack of charity. It rankles.”
My response:
I didn’t add the ‘state-run’ qualifier that you are adding. I think without that qualifier, your premise is too weak. I do think that it is not a christian world view to be against the principle of healthcare for everyone. I think we should be open to discussing a variety of ways in which that can be accomplished, and in addition I think we should discuss the idea of a government managed health care payment system. I don’t think there is any value in the argument “oh look at all the poor jobs the government has done in the past.” If anything, that is an argument for getting rid of government altogether, but not an argument for letting folks remain without health care.
Tim said:
“Yes. I notice you didn’t address my point, though, which is that there are other avenues to health care for the poor beside creating a titanic government health bureaucracy. The Church ought to be taking the lead, but of course, we CAN abdicate the responsibility to the government if we choose to. It’s definitely one way to do it.”
My response:
In all fairness, your response talked past my point entirely. I did not assert that we needed to create a ‘titanic government health bureaucracy’ as you suggest, in fact, I didn’t mention a solution at all. I only stated that we needed universal healthcare, and that it seemed to be more consistent with Christian thinking than not having it.
I think even if we have it, and it isn’t ideal, it is still more consistent with Christian thinking than not having it at all for the sake of protecting ourselves from bad government is.
Tim said:
“We’ve dealt with A straw man. Give me a hint on the cheap argument (whatever that means).”
My response:
The cheap argument is the ‘cheap shot’ you apologized for in the first quote.
Leo — They look and say “this is not working.”
They then try to figure out why– is the system bad, or is the whole idea bad?
As opposed as I am to socialized medicine, I agree with J to some degree that as Christians we are called to love our fellow man. Furthermore I think that part of loving your fellow man would be helping him get health care, just as it is our call to feed the poor.
What I don’t believe is that any government can act charitably because it’s actions and funding are inherantly derived by force or threat of force.
What government should do is regulate, not administrate. That is, set clear limits for behavior, assign responsibility in court, and define punishments etc. In other words set the minimum behavior level and enforce the law.
Charity is up to the community and the Church. In fact the fallacy of government “charity” undermines that good Christian conscience to act personally with love.
If we think the state will take care of people since we pay our taxes, we can be seduced into thinking we have satisfied our Christian responsibility to the poor.
Policraticus: You’re welcome to call it hijacking, and to jeer at my cute playground talk. I have nothing to say on my behalf. My only caveat is that how we treat one another is more important than what economic theories we hold. It was in regard to the latter, not the former, that I objected to your presumption to know what in fact you don’t.
not working at all – in which case people would object to the founding principles
Not necessarily. I think you’re assuming too much in this premise. Sorry I can’t think of a clearer refutation right now, but I have work I have to get done before the end of the day. I’ll try again later.
J,
If anything, that is an argument for getting rid of government altogether, but not an argument for letting folks remain without health care.
No — in fact, it’s an argument saying that just because you have government-managed health care doesn’t necessarily mean that the problem of folks without health care will become resolved.
Tim J. could speak for himself — but it seems, J, that your argument here strikes me as being similar to that of those who believe that if we subscribe to global warming parties, global warming will be solved.
Similarly, you seem to think that if we subscribe to a government-managed healthcare, everyone will have healthcare when, in fact, even then, you may end up with folks without health care and, in addition, the middle and low income classes suffering even more heavily due to the extra burden of taxes that will result out of such a program.
MA– Did you read that study on charity?
Conservatives– those who don’t look to the government for much– gave far, far more than liberals– those who want the government to do charity, even among those who thought more should be done.
Esau,
I don’t recall stating that I thought we should have a government managed health care system for the sake of itself. I recall that what I said was, it is an option which should be discussed as a means (among possible others) to getting universal (maybe we should call it catholic health care? ;)) coverage for health care. Obviously if any system proposed as a means to the end of universal health care, does not actually fit as a means toward that end, then it shouldn’t be considered. I don’t think we’re to a point in this discussion where we can simply toss out the idea of a government managed heath care payment system.
Foxfier
I did hear about it and there was a second study of nations which mirrored those results.
Thanks, J, for that clarification.
It just seemed to me that you were more along the lines that gov-managed health care would be some sort of cureall, which I don’t necessarily agree with.
J,
you’re cleverly blurring the distinction between universal availability of health care and univeral funding of health care under a single payer system. It’s fascinating how your arguments wind their way around this.
Nobody here is arguing against universal availability of health care, although not necessary equity in that regard. We are arguing against any broad government health funding/insurance/provider system that mandates our participation directly or through taxation.
God Bless,
Matt
This is completely off-topic, but check this out : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Akin
Cool, huh?
(I’m still waiting to get unto wikipedia. heck, I’d take a google search. 🙂
Matt said:
“J,
you’re cleverly blurring the distinction between universal availability of health care and univeral funding of health care under a single payer system. It’s fascinating how your arguments wind their way around this.
Nobody here is arguing against universal availability of health care, although not necessary equity in that regard. We are arguing against any broad government health funding/insurance/provider system that mandates our participation directly or through taxation.”
My response:
Matt,
I’m not making the distinction between the two, because making such a distinction is just another possibility in the list of possible ways we can arrive at universal health care. I see that you lean toward this solution since you want to make the distinction. That is fine, I’m personally open to discussion of any solution which solves the problem of providing health care to everyone. If that means we discuss a system which has many payers involved, that is certainly okay with me. I stated the single payer, government managed heath care payment system should not be discounted from the discussion.
I don’t think what I said was all that “fascinating” 😉
Additionally, it should be noted that “Universal availability” (your words) of health care is not at all the same as “universal health care”. Universal availability is a term used by those proponents of not much at all changing about our current health care system.
J,
I’m not making the distinction between the two, because making such a distinction is just another possibility in the list of possible ways we can arrive at universal health care. I see that you lean toward this solution since you want to make the distinction.
Making a distinction is not a solution, it’s just necessary to discussion.
That is fine, I’m personally open to discussion of any solution which solves the problem of providing health care to everyone. If that means we discuss a system which has many payers involved, that is certainly okay with me.
Ok, but we already have a system that provides care, it has problems that need solving, and serious ones. I think you are demanding something other than that, and you are entitled to that demand, but let’s be open about it.
I stated the single payer, government managed heath care payment system should not be discounted from the discussion.
I don’t think what I said was all that “fascinating” 😉
We are discussing it, and giving many reasons why it is not the right solution.
Additionally, it should be noted that “Universal availability” (your words) of health care is not at all the same as “universal health care”. Universal availability is a term used by those proponents of not much at all changing about our current health care system.
Ok, I don’t know what you mean by this distinction, so please explain the difference. Oh, and please don’t suggest that because I oppose universal socialized/government health insurance that the status quo is what I propose, that is simply a straw man, there are more options.
God Bless,
Matt
I have nothing to say on my behalf. My only caveat is that how we treat one another is more important than what economic theories we hold. It was in regard to the latter, not the former, that I objected to your presumption to know what in fact you don’t.
How honorable. And yet right after claiming to be indifferent to yourself in this matter, you once more invoke your original objection of knowing more than I do about the “matter” of Jimmy Akin. It’s like invoking humility while stating how very special you are. Interesting.
I’ll bet you could give my comments a more charitable reading, if you wanted to.
SDG,
I’ll bet you could give my comments a more charitable reading, if you wanted to.
nothing surprising about that, I’ve experienced this numerous times from the Catholic Worker/Socialist set.
God Bless,
Matt
SDG wasn’t trying to brag, Policraticus. It’s a pretty good guess he has SOME kind of personal relationship with Jimmy, as SDG posts (as opposed to just commenting) on Jimmy’s blog from time to time.
What he has been trying to point out is that he, in fact, has information you don’t. He has knowledge of things about which you only speculate. Is that somehow unfair in your universe? Is the brute force of fact just disallowed in order to level out the rhetorical playing field?
But speaking of defending one’s competence… what special qualifications do you bring to this discussion? What expertise in economics or public policy?
I think his expertise is in snobbery.
I’ll bet you could give my comments a more charitable reading, if you wanted to.
I went by what you gave me. Perhaps by charitable you just mean to concede to your bedazzling knowledge on the “matter” of Jimmy Akin.
But speaking of defending one’s competence… what special qualifications do you bring to this discussion? What expertise in economics or public policy?
I claimed no expertise in economics or public policy, I only pointed out that Akin seems to lack competence in the area of economics. I requested that he answer MM’s points–and MM has a degree of expertise in the area that I suspect is unmatched by anyone in this thread. But, since you specifically asked what are my credentials, I will only tell you that my graduate degree is in theology, and I am earning another grad degree in philosophy and political theory. I may not know a lot, but I can certainly spot someone whose assertions extend beyond their competence (i.e. Akin).
nothing surprising about that, I’ve experienced this numerous times from the Catholic Worker/Socialist set.
Yes, this makes total sense. Since the Pope himself views democratic socialism as closely upholding Catholic social teaching (read his Europe before you object), and since the founder of Catholic Worker, Dorothy Day, was named “Servant of God” by John Paul II and her path to beatification is proceeding as we write, I’d say the so-called “Catholic Worker/Socialist set” is far more Catholic than the RepubliCatholicism that permates these threads. But, hey, that’s just what I get for actually reading about our faith instead swimming the shallow end of the apologetics pool.
I’d say the so-called “Catholic Worker/Socialist set” is far more Catholic than the RepubliCatholicism that permates these threads.
Then why are you superior Catholics always so nasty?
JP II knew a little bit about the excesses of socialism as well. Virtue is in a moderate middle between the excesses of materialism and the imposition of socialism. Ideally Catholicism is meant to transcend politics which are ultimately worldly.
Why don’t you guide us out into those deeper waters? – offer us a serious discourse.
“I may not know a lot, but I can certainly spot someone whose assertions extend beyond their competence”
How would you know if you did, given that you have no special knowledge, either?
But more to the point, This is Jimmy’s blog and he can comment about anything he likes. You are free to refute whatever you take exception to. Free speech, man.
But saying he ought to basically shut up because you don’t like what he says is childish. You said he ought not speak outside his area of professional expertise, so I naturally was curious to know if you were speaking outside yours.
Sauce, gander… all that.
I OFTEN would like to see Jimmy )or “Akin” as you so affectionately address him) expand on things and debate people in the combox, but this is very rare. He is extremely occupied with other duties right now.
If you are not happy, I’m sure he will be glad to refund the price of your subscription.
I think the phrase is “All hat and no cattle.”
Then why are you superior Catholics always so nasty?
I consider it not so much to be nastiness so much as a holy wrath.;) Truth be told, I don’t think one’s socio-economic leanings has anything to do with being nasty or being charitable. I believe the tone of several comments in this thread bordered on nasty, my own included. And looking back I regret my tone and apologize to those to whom my comments were directed. Most times it’s just better to state what one means without attaching ill sentiment to rhetoric, and for that I am sorry.
JP II knew a little bit about the excesses of socialism as well. Virtue is in a moderate middle between the excesses of materialism and the imposition of socialism. Ideally Catholicism is meant to transcend politics which are ultimately worldly.
Indeed, he did. I love John Paul II’s thorough critiques of Marxist socialism in both its theoretical and practical modes. In my reading of Pope Benedict XVI, I see his praise of democratic socialism in reference to non-Marxist forms of distributism. After all, socialism preceded Marx, and not all socialism is Marxist, as Benedict has wisely pointed out. And you are correct. Ultimately, there is a transcendence–a conversion toward transcendence–that the Catholic must make whereby he/she recognizes the inability of political machinery to fix the fallenness of man and establish peace and justice in terms of a purely natural establishment. Grace and nature, as I believe you are implying.
Why don’t you guide us out into those deeper waters? – offer us a serious discourse.
Well, I do maintain a blog with about ten other people, all of us of different political persuasions. Hopefully my rudeness has not convinced you that the others at Vox Nova have nothing to offer. In fact, two contributors in particular (Alexham and Jonathan) bear striking resemblences to Akin in their political perspective. I invite you to visit sometime…if you like, you can just ignore my posts.
But saying he ought to basically shut up because you don’t like what he says is childish. You said he ought not speak outside his area of professional expertise, so I naturally was curious to know if you were speaking outside yours.
Careful, now. I did not say Akin should shut up. Taking my comments together, I advise Akin not to post on something outside his competence if he is going to neglect to follow-up and clarify his remarks when put to the test. I think this is good advice for anyone, especially those of us who may have a very large readership. I have some formal studies in political theory and economics, yes, but I did not state my own opinions on the matter. I merely had hoped that Akin would be more responsible with the sphere of his influence and not leave such unsubstantiated remarks on what purports to be an informed Catholic blog. Morning’s Minion, who has extensive experience in economics, has written a lot on the very question of which Akin speaks, and I’d like Akin to respond as he has in the past to challenges. In the past, Akin has responded to me in the comment box every time I challenged one of his points. This is the first time he has not responded, which is what I was trying to convey to SDG.
If you are not happy, I’m sure he will be glad to refund the price of your subscription.
I have yet to pay a toll, but given the recent pandering of Catholic Answers, I would not be surprised if I eventually will have to invest.
Thanks Poli – I’ll check it out. I’ll not pretend to be open to socialist politics, but I’m always interested in serious content.
“Hopefully my rudeness has not convinced you that the others at Vox Nova have nothing to offer.”
I’ve been rude here as well – more than I care to be. We live in a polarizing world and it’s easy to become callous and to forget the real person on the other end of the line.
We live in a polarizing world and it’s easy to become callous and to forget the real person on the other end of the line.
Well, I suppose that is the limitation of blogging–often I find myself using a sharp, condescending tone with ease given the anonymity of the whole thing. No excuse. I assure you, had we met in person, I suspect our conversation would be rather cordial and edifying.
Oh–and if you are an Aggie as in A&M, then I am doubly embarrassed for mistreating a fellow Aggie.
I have my MS and PhD and most importantly my wife from Texas A&M
What did you study?
Forestry and Plant Biotechnology and Physiology. What did you study?
I am currently attending A&M for grad work. I am in the philosophy program with an emphasis on social/political theory.
Re Brother Akin’s knowledge on economics, etc.
1. It is probably fair to note that one should be cautious about posting opinions that involve competencies outside one’s training or experience; but that is not quite the same thing as saying one should never post on such things.
2. While Jimmy may not have a background in economics (I have no idea), he does post on economic issues and policies regularly, and his posts are uniformly measured. It seems to me that the greater removed one’s commentary is from one’s competency, the greater the importance of measure and lack of arrogance in the commentary. In my view Jimmy’s behavior vis-a-vis this maxim is exemplary.
3. Finally, the substance of Jimmy’s posts re economics matters has always struck me as pretty darn good, even when I disagree with such substance; and my B.A, is in Economics.
How fitting. For myself I find politics less and less satisfying compared to religion, especially now that I’m raising kids. The heart of life and love is in the home. There’s little love to be found in politics of any flavor.
I’ve been seeking to increase my self-discipline on political subjects in order to fulfill Christ’s call to love thy neighbor and judge not. So when I dived head long into a pointless battle (When’s the last time you changed someone’s mind?) I knew I stepped off the path.
Ultimately politics is often arrogant. Anytime one man presumes to rule over another, pride is a temptation. I would like to see a system that incorporates humility in it’s understanding of what the State can achieve.
Gig ’em
FWIW, I like it better when you say it this way.
Also FWIW, Jimmy has always sometimes (if you follow me) responded to combox challenges and sometimes not. Your experience until now may have been uniform, but this could be a number of factors at work, including coincidence.
I hesitate to invoke my knowledge of Jimmy’s schedule lately, but actually anyone paying attention to the blog can see that Jimmy has been doing significantly less blogging lately than he has historically, and infer that more of his time has been taken up with other things. By the same token and for the same reasons, he has had less time to spend reading and responding to combox posts.
I still have nothing to say on economics.
politicratus,
Matt said: nothing surprising about that, I’ve experienced this [uncharitable reading of other’s position] numerous times from the Catholic Worker/Socialist set.
politicratus said: Yes, this makes total sense.
Hopefully then you’ll reform your ways.
Since the Pope himself views democratic socialism as closely upholding Catholic social teaching (read his Europe before you object),
You will then post a citation in which the he states precisely that, as it is not considered good form in debate to ask someone to read an entire book. And no, just because you jump to that conclusion, as y’all often do, does not constitute that as being the Holy Father’s position. I’d be happy to cite documents from the Holy See that clearly state socialism is not a moral form of government in that it elevates the state above the individual person.
and since the founder of Catholic Worker, Dorothy Day, was named “Servant of God” by John Paul II and her path to beatification is proceeding as we write, I’d say the so-called “Catholic Worker/Socialist set” is far more Catholic than the RepubliCatholicism that permates these threads.
First of all, this is clearly a non-sequitor: Because Dorothy Day may be revered as a holy person, her followers are more Catholic than someone else. Besides, playing the “more Catholic than thou game is really not profitable anyway. Secondly, how often does Catholic Worker magazine publish actual writings of DD? I looked at 3 or 4 issues and never found one. A good friend of mine likes CW, I asked her what writings of DD she liked the best, she had never read anything. My interest is not sufficient to pursue this, but I would really question as to how much CW actually follows their founder’s positions, and how much the movement has just missapropriated her, much as the way the the suffragetes (and Susan B. Anthony) have been missappropriated by the radical feminists of today.
But, hey, that’s just what I get for actually reading about our faith instead swimming the shallow end of the apologetics pool.
Now you’re implying that if we haven’t read CW or “Europe” we don’t know our faith? How about Denzinger? The Council of Trent? Rerum Novarum? None of those documents indicate we have to be socialist to be good Catholics, and some suggest the opposite:
it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property. This being established, we proceed to show where the remedy sought for must be found.
Socialists, democratic or otherwise, constantly conflate the idea of Christian Charity with government action, what the state does is never charity, only voluntary offerings can be properly considered charity. And don’t even get me started on liberation theology, a topic CW is laden with.
God Bless,
Matt
matt,
From his First Things article:
“In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.”
Thanks, daedalus.
One important problem with quoting Pope Benedict on the matter is this:
“Democratic socialism is difficult to define, and groups of scholars have radically different definitions for the term. Some equate it to other socioeconomic systems such as libertarian socialism, state socialism or social democracy. While others claim that it is fundamentally different from those ideologies.” [From Wiki]
My own guess is that the pope intended the term to simply be in contradistinction to state owned economies and economies that are rigidly libertarian. In other words, the state should be organized in a way that is fundamentally democratic and the rules of the economy should be designed to benefit the general population. I doubt he intended the term to have much precision beyond that, but heck if I know.
Good for you Matt, keep fighting
I just don’t have the desire to bang my head against the wall anymore. I have left wing family members who sincerely believe ridiculous nonsense (Global warmin’, Hillary would be a good prez, etc) but they think I’m nuts for being Christian.
I don’t believe most people are open to other viewpoints – barring some life changing events- minds are generally closed. It’s like pouring water on a rock – nothing’s going to sink in.
Still if we remember those reading these words might include the rare few who have not decided it’s worth it.
Daedalus,
“In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.”
Thanks for posting this it’s helpful. Still though, it is not consistent with the statement made by poli:
views democratic socialism as closely upholding Catholic social teaching
“In many respects” does not support the statement that it more closely upholds Catholic social teaching as whole than another structure. The Holy Father does not develop his thoughts on democratic socialism (at least in this article) so that we might know which particular tenets he praises and to what extent they ought to be implemented.
God Bless,
Matt
The Holy Father does not develop his thoughts on democratic socialism (at least in this article) so that we might know which particular tenets he praises and to what extent they ought to be implemented.
Are we supposed to look to the Church to determine the best economic policy?
This is beyond the competency of the Church and although Church members may hold certain opinions, they are not binding and authoritative nor do I believe such members declare their thoughts on these matters as such.
But, hey, that’s just what I get for actually reading about our faith instead swimming the shallow end of the apologetics pool.
One of the most fundamental things an apologist must remember is always to be charitable.
B16s First Things article is well worth reading for its perceptiveness and historical insights. It’s not only for ‘loyal Catholics’ but will benefit anyone with an open and inquiring mind.
Esau is right to say that we should not look to the Church to determine the best economic policy [details]. But we should look to the Church’s social doctrine for our political and economic values.
As to the meaning of
… democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine …
the context should help to make the meaning clearer. My italics.
I think part of the problem is that some on the Right see the Democrats as barely different economically than the Soviet Communists*. Thus they read the Church’s condemnation of atheistic Communism and see a condemnation of things like government-provided universal healthcare that simply isn’t there.
*I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen or heard the Democrats equated with socialists and socialists equated with Communists. The Bush=Hitler folks don’t have a monopoly on hyperbolic political absurdity.
Thus they read the Church’s condemnation of atheistic Communism and see a condemnation of things like government-provided universal healthcare that simply isn’t there.
This is what the Right thinks/declares?
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen or heard the Democrats equated with socialists and socialists equated with Communists. The Bush=Hitler folks don’t have a monopoly on hyperbolic political absurdity.
Wow — Godwin’s Law yet again.
Yes — why don’t we simply depend on the Government to do everything for us.
blockquote
off
Leo,
B16s First Things article is well worth reading for its perceptiveness and historical insights. It’s not only for ‘loyal Catholics’ but will benefit anyone with an open and inquiring mind.
Esau is right to say that we should not look to the Church to determine the best economic policy [details]. But we should look to the Church’s social doctrine for our political and economic values.
Absolutely.
As to the meaning of
… [In many respects,] democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine …
the context should help to make the meaning clearer. My italics.
“But in Europe, in the nineteenth century, the two models were joined by a third, socialism, which quickly split into two different branches, one totalitarian and the other democratic. Democratic socialism managed to fit within the two existing models as a welcome counterweight to the radical liberal positions, which it developed and corrected. It also managed to appeal to various denominations. In England it became the political party of the Catholics, who had never felt at home among either the Protestant conservatives or the liberals. In Wilhelmine Germany, too, Catholic groups felt closer to democratic socialism than to the rigidly Prussian and Protestant conservative forces. In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.
The totalitarian model, by contrast, was associated with a rigidly materialistic, atheistic philosophy of history: It saw history deterministically, as a road of progress that passes first through the religious and then through the liberal phase to arrive at an absolute, ultimate society in which religion is surpassed as a relic of the past and collective happiness is guaranteed by the workings of material conditions. ”
Providing the context does nothing to strengthen the connection to what you said:
views democratic socialism as closely upholding Catholic social teaching
Furthermore, your clever edit excluding the very important “In many respects” is a very facile attempt at misdirection.
God Bless,
Matt
I don’t think I have ever heard a Catholic conservative (or any person of any religious or political orientation for that mattter) criticize the concept of government-provided universal healthcare based on the following syllogism (actually “sillygism”):
Catholics cannot abide communism;
Government-provided universal heathcare is a feature of Communism;
Ergo, Catholics cannot abide government-provided universal healthcare.
And I run in a lot of so-called conservative Catholic circles.
You run is some odd circles, daedalus.
I don’t think I have ever heard a Catholic conservative (or any person of any religious or political orientation for that mattter) criticize the concept of government-provided universal healthcare based on the following syllogism (actually “sillygism”):
Catholics cannot abide communism;
Government-provided universal heathcare is a feature of Communism;
Ergo, Catholics cannot abide government-provided universal healthcare.
And I run in a lot of so-called conservative Catholic circles.
You run is some odd circles, daedalus.
Hear, hear!
What Mike said.
Matt
you misquote me! I didn’t say
views democratic socialism as closely upholding Catholic social teaching
It was not my intention at “misdirection” or “clever editing” by exclusion. If it was I would not have quoted two long paragraphs in full nor commended the reading of the whole article.
I would rather discuss what B16 said and its relevance to the subject at hand.
Leo,
you misquote me! I didn’t say
views democratic socialism as closely upholding Catholic social teaching
It was not my intention at “misdirection” or “clever editing” by exclusion. If it was I would not have quoted two long paragraphs in full nor commended the reading of the whole article.
I would rather discuss what B16 said and its relevance to the subject at hand.
Pardon me it was politicus, you following up so quickly threw me off, for that I apologize. So you would reject this statement:
The Holy Father views democratic socialism as closely upholding Catholic social teaching?
Thanks.
As to the misdirection, I withdraw the charge, and apologize. I would inquire though, as to why you chose to parse out the operative phrase “in many respects” from the part you pulled out of the paragraph, making the statement seem to more strongly support socialism than it does in fact.
God Bless,
Matt
daedalus,
I think part of the problem is that some on the Right see the Democrats as barely different economically than the Soviet Communists*. Thus they read the Church’s condemnation of atheistic Communism and see a condemnation of things like government-provided universal healthcare that simply isn’t there.
*I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen or heard the Democrats equated with socialists and socialists equated with Communists. The Bush=Hitler folks don’t have a monopoly on hyperbolic political absurdity.
That some do this bears no relevence to the discussion. Nobody here has made that claim, so why do you raise it? Are you trying to paint us with that brush? Notice, how those on the right even in hyperboly make a ideological connection, whereas the hyperbole on the left manifests as a personal assault… MoveOn.org is a perfect example.
God Bless,
Matt
ps. what Mike said
Matt, apology accepted – thanks.
As for the “parsing”, I had in mind Mike Petrik’s comments (Sep 26, 11:51) on the definition of ‘democratic socialism’. Anyway, enough nitpicking/raking-over.
The qualification ‘in many respects’ seems important to you, and got me asking myself:
in what respects is democratic socialism
close to Catholic social doctrine?
This is a big (prayerful/studyful?) question for all who seek to put gospel values before habitual political allegiance.
Anyway, that is probably another discussion and as this subject seems to have come to a natural conclusion, I don’t anticipate me (or anyone else?) having anything significantly new to say.
Thanks and Shalom.
Leo,
in what respects is democratic socialism
close to Catholic social doctrine?
I notice you brought in the term “respects”, as one who values precision, it seems to me the discussion thus far has been about “tenet”, which is the word the Holy Father used. Now, perhaps you mean the same thing, if you do I respectfully suggest you use the same word. Respects seems to me to mean something different, and more to do with evaluating the ideology as a whole, rather than dissecting it.
As Catholics we have to dissect any political ideology, there is none that we can wholly embrace.
God Bless,
Matt
Matt
B16 used the word “respects” not “tenets” in his First Things article when he said:
In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness. (my emphasis). (I can’t find the word “tenets” in that article by B16. Can you?)
So I think my question
in what respects is democratic socialism
close to Catholic social doctrine?
is a valid one for prayer/study/reflection/dissection inspired by that article.
Even if some people find it unsettling and challenging.
One could also ask
in what respects is [insert personal political stance] close to Catholic social doctrine?
Note that most, if not all, the other political positions, explicitly named, in that article seem to be judged less positively than “many respects” of “democratic socialism”.
As I said earlier these are ‘biggies’ probably more suited to a discussion of their own.
Leo,
you’re correct, i’m being brain dead today.
Matt
CNN.com: Brits resort to pulling own teeth.
With pliers. According to a major new study.