Health Reform and Life
A new Harvard Medical School study estimates that 45,000 people die each year due to lack of access to health insurance (HT TPM):
Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year — one every 12 minutes — in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday. “We’re losing more Americans every day because of inaction … than drunk driving and homicide combined,” Dr. David Himmelstein, a co-author of the study and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard, said in an interview with Reuters.
That access to health care is so clearly a life issue is just part of why the opposition to health reform from some pro-life quarters is so hard for me to understand. The other reason I am confused by their position is that I don’t completely understand the anxiety that subsidies for insurance will facilitate people getting abortions. Obama is willing, as I understand it, to mandate that insurers receiving subsidies pay for abortions only out of revenue received from individual premiums. The counter-argument I’ve heard is that this distinction is just a gimmick. Since the newly insured wouldn’t have been able to afford coverage without the federal subsidy, any time they use their subsidized insurance to procure an abortion, it’s as if the federal government’s subsidies were the cause of the abortion.
There are a couple of aspects of the argument that confuse me. First, surely some of the uninsured surely get abortions today, through services provided by nonprofit groups like Planned Parenthood. So we’re really talking about some increment of the uninsured – those who would not be able to afford to get an abortion today but who would get one if they had access to subsidized insurance. How many people are we talking about? More than the 45,000 people who die each year because of the lack of access to health care?
But more broadly, wouldn’t this abortion-facilitating argument be equally true for any government subsidy of the poor? How, for example, is it different from saying that we should not give the poor food stamps because (for some undetermined number of people) that will free up money from their personal budgets that they will then use to go out and procure an abortion that they otherwise would not have been able to afford? Should we require food-stamp recipients to sign some pledge that they won’t use their private money to procure abortions? Given the various positions that Obama has taken to try to defuse the abortion issue in the health care context, that it may nonetheless indirectly subsidize abortions strikes me as a very odd argument against Catholics supporting health care reform.
on September 18th, 2009 at 11:50 am
It seems to me that that so-called “pro-life” argument applies to ALL subsidies to the poor. Recipients of help from Catholic Charities can also deflect newly uncommitted money to abortions.
If you saw a pregnant woman with four ragged kids huddled around her begging on the street, should you not give her money?
on September 18th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Eduardo,
I guess the difference between subsidizing food via food stamps, and subsidizing abortion via health insurance premiums, is that food stamps can be used for food, but not for abortion. Insurance premiums can be used for health care AND abortion.
I agree that people who don’t have health insurance should have health insurance. It’s not clear to me that, ecause private insurers pay for abortions, it’s okay for the federal government to give those companies money. In fact, when it’s put that way, it sounds to me as though it’s not okay.
on September 18th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
It needs to be explained to me how anyone can have a lack of access to health insurance. What, do they not have a phone?
on September 18th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Didnt we just hav e a bishop talking about the ‘moral imperatibe” of universal health care?
Instead, we get smart remarks from the so caleed value voters.
Personally, I think the number of 45,000 is shocking, but i guess many are more concerned about “socialism” and what it will bring or big government or posibly abortions covered by private insurance.
on September 18th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Following on Bob Nunz’s comment. If anyone else even suggests that there is anything such as “the undeserving poor” I fear that I’ll wreck my computer. For all the “doubters,” please spell out what you think makes some people less deserving of as good medical care as you get. Then say how what you say squares with the Beatitudes, etc.
on September 18th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Having one’s unborn child put to death somehow doesn’t seem to fit into the category of “health care”. Especially for the unborn child. And if the baby survives the abortion attempt, denying that baby nourishment and medical care, well…
on September 18th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
I appreciate the opportunity to revise and extend my remarks. Let’s start with something we can all agree on: Every U.S citizen has access to healthcare and healthcare insurance. Those in the US who don’t have health insurance fall into one of the following buckets:
1) Illegal aliens, in which case the immigration system, not the healthcare system is the problem.
2) Those who can’t afford health insurance, in which case it’s a welfare issue, not a healthcare issue.
Mealy-mouthed whining about the “lack of access” and imprecise formulations of the problem are not helpful.
Ok, now you can begin wrecking your computers.
on September 18th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
2) Those who can’t afford health insurance, in which case it’s a welfare issue, not a healthcare issue.
Mark, how uniformed can you get. People can be working whereby they do not qualify for welfare because they make too much money. This is the whole issue. It is better to be very poor or very rich. Those in the middle cannot afford health care and do not qualify for health care because they make “too much.”
on September 18th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
“Those who can’t afford health insurance, in which case it’s a welfare issue, not a healthcare issue.”
??? Is this a serious comment?
If it is, Google “pre-existing condition.” Cure your ignorance.
Summary:
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 21 percent of people who apply for health insurance on their own get turned down, charged a higher price or offered a plan that excludes coverage for their pre-existing condition…
The health insurance industry doesn’t deny that people are rejected or charged higher premiums because of pre-existing conditions.
The industry’s trade association, America’s Health Insurance Plans, has a proposal to help people with pre-existing conditions as part of a comprehensive health-care reform plan.
But there’s a catch: The association says insurance companies could guarantee coverage for people with pre-existing conditions only if all Americans are required to purchase coverage. If that happens, the group says, not only would people with pre-existing conditions be covered, their premiums would not be higher. You can read the complete proposal on the association’s Web site.”
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/05/14/preexisting.condition.insurance/index.html
on September 18th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Bernard –
Please don’t wreck your computer. To say or imply that some poor people (note I said some) are less than wholly responsible in their behavior, and,therefore, justice does not require that others pay their bills, is not to say that carity does not require that they be helped. Havi
When I worked in a predominantly black university in the mid-sixties when the black middle class was still small, I found that many black people who had made it into the middle class by extremely hard work (two and three jobs) were quite bitter abput paying taxes for those (yes, there are some) who accepted welfare as their way of life. True, “welfare queens” who had numerous kids so they could buy Cadillacs with welfare money are an urban myth. And nobody prefers welfare. But the fact remains that people who work terribly hard to get out of poverty often resent paying taxes for those who don’t.
The Democratic Party used to claim both the poor and the financially lower middle class. If I’m not mistaken, that is no longer true, and there must be a reason. Have the sociologists studied this question in any detail? What are the figures — to which party do the formerly poor belong? I would be surprised if they are still mainly Democrats.
None of this is to imply that *charity•, not to mention the common good, does not require that the non-poor help all the poor. But over-simplifying the resistance to such help doesn’t get the needed bills through legislatures.
I would like to hear the thinking of the conservatives on this list about this matter. It is, I think, one of the things which divides us so fiercely ideologically, and greater understanding is needed on both sides.
If you wreck your computer, Bernard, we’ll no longer have the benefit of your always relevant thinking. So please don’t.
on September 19th, 2009 at 4:17 am
When I was a teen my mother and stepfather got divorced and my mom and sister and I were not doing well financially – we had food stamps, no health insurance. When my mom had a heart attack, I drove her in the middle of the night to the only hospital in twon that took people without insurance – the county hispital – which was pretty far away from where we lived. She made it to the emergency room just in time and survived. There have been times since then when I haven’t had insurance and have had to go to free clinics, etc. More recently my sister has lost her job, her husband has no job, their insurance will run out in some months, and I don’t know how they’ll afford to buy it themselves. I very much hope for public universla health care.
on September 19th, 2009 at 10:55 am
“But the fact remains that people who work terribly hard to get out of poverty often resent paying taxes for those who don’t.”
Sadly, for the most part people forget where they came from. There are always those who cheat whether very poor or in Madoff territory. All the different ethnic groups who were given aid and sustenance by the Democratic party are mostly Republicans now since they feel that is the mark of people who made it. But the real problem is that too many politicians get their votes by criticizing the poor and calling them welfare cheats. This is definitely going on with the health care debate.
The Republicans are so happy they have this issue in which they can muster some attention even if they are generally leaderless right now. It is one thing to be political and one thing to be irresponsible which is exactly what one is if no effective health care plan comes about helping all the people.
on September 19th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Help me stop whining, Mark Proska! I certainly don’t want to be a drain on society’s resources or sympathy!
My employer needed to cut health care costs. It has done so by moving those of us who are not represented by unions onto part-time contracts that have no benefits. Problem solved! For them.
I can afford health care for my kid, even with his asthma, so things seem to be better there.
I can’t find it for myself. I’m 55, have pre-hypertension (possibly self-inflicted from reading your posts, and based on newer medical guidelines that have lowered the bar for what’s considered pre-hypertension), so I now have a pre-existing condition and affordable coverage is zippo, even though I’ve been on the horn with all sorts of companies, legit and otherwise, who purport to offer me a “good deal.”
I can pay for routine doc visits, flu shots. I can get a freebie once in awhile on pap and memmo screenings, but I can’t see the point, because if they told me I had cancer, I couldn’t afford to have a catastrophic illness treated.
My best bet for affordable health care is to quit one of two jobs and go on Medicaid. Six- to eight-month wait on that, but, better than waiting another 10 years until I’m eligible for Medicare. However, that means I’ll have health care, but not enough money to meet our very modest financial obligations, and I prefer to stay solvent.
I do have a phone, and I’ll stand by to await your call!
on September 19th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Your 1st Point – 45,000 people die annually because they don’t have health insurance
Your 2nd Point – Abortions will not increase by more than 45,000 if the federal goverment pays for health insurance that covers abortion for low and middle income people (regardless of who pays what portion of the policy)
Your assessment goes against the findings of the Guttmacher Institute, an organization formerly affilated with Planned Parenthood, that provides the most accurate data on abortion. Based on their data, which refers to Medicaid eligible woman (however most of those who will be effected by this new plan will be just above the Medicaid line), abortions will increase astronomically if funded – hundreds of thousands more. Please follow below:
They found that 1/4 of Medicaid eligible woman would have aborted their child if abortion was funded for them (by fee for service or insurance coverage).
The federal government does not fund abortion for Medicaid enrollees and 33 states do not fund abortion for Medicaid enrollees (17 states do fund abortion for Medicaid enrollees). The 33 states that do not fund abortion for Medicaid enrollees have a Medicaid population over 20 million and pregnant women under these Medicaid programs give over 2 million births per year. Following the conclusions of Guttmacher, 500,000 more abortion would occur in America if either the federal government or those 33 states began to fund abortions or provide insurance coverage that funded abortions for these Medicaid eligible women.
500,000 more abortions if we funded private insurance that covered abortion for Medicaid enrollees!
The new healthcare plan will be primarily funding insurance policies for those that live just above the Medicaid line all the way up to the middle class. Many of these will be young women in child-bearing years, as we know that many of the young people do not have health insurance. Although not on Medicaid, these people are lower income and thus do not have ready access to funds that would pay for a first or second trimester abortion.
If you estimate that bring 20 million people onto the health insurance rolls (the same amount of those enrollees in Medicaid in those 33 states that do not have abortion funded for them), you will see an astronomical increase in abortions. It may not the 500,000 increase that we would see under the Medicaid population of its size, but feel free to cut that in half and you would see a 250,000 increase, or reduce it by 75% and you would see a 125,000 increase in abortions. Much more than the 45,000 loss of lives who don’t have insurance now. This is what the data. from Guttmacher, tells us.
on September 19th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Michael, your argument reduces to this: We should be willing to allow 45,000 Americans to die every year on the chance that states that do not now extend abortion rights to Medicaid recipients will do so and will result in a theoretically larger number of aborted fetuses.
Is there no middle ground?
Blood pressure rising …
on September 19th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Jean—
I appreciate the engaging tone of your response—I didn’t find it to be whining. I agree you’re in a tough spot, not really of your own making. The problem is that, because health insurance is usually purchased through our employers, there’s no opportunity for us to buy non-cancellable policies, and when we lose our job or our employer changes the plan, we can be left hung out to dry. With non-cancellable policies, the pre-existing condition problem goes away. We do need to reform the system so that employees have the same tax incentives employers currently do to purchase healthcare insurance. Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s part of the plan Congress is considering.
The fact that you were able to obtain quotes from several companies indicates that the free enterprise system is working, but the market is telling you that the price of insuring you is higher than the cost you want to pay (or can pay). However, if your house is on fire, you can’t expect to purchase homeowners insurance at the standard rate. If you have a fatal disease, you can’t expect a life insurer to offer you a low premium. If you have a pre-existing condition, you can’t expect a healthcare insurer not to surcharge you—that’s only fair to other customers who do not present the risks that you do.
So the question is: how does society want to deal with those who have pre-existing conditions and don’t have the money to pay their medical bills? Do we want to bail them out, as we’ve bailed others out? I don’t see that as fundamentally a healthcare issue.
Anyway, hope this post doesn’t exacerbate your pre-hypertension condition. Prayer helps. We’ll keep you in our prayers at Mass on Sunday. Best of luck to you.
on September 19th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Mark, I wouldn’t argue that someone of my age and in my condition shouldn’t have to pay somewhat more in insurance premiums. Life insurance policy rates go up with your age, car insurance premiums are adjusted to your driving record.
The problem is that health insurance companies are cherry picking healthy people, which is great for their profit margins, but sort of defeats the whole notion of insurance, which is for the members to share risk.
The other problem is that health care is too expensive because of inefficiency in the system, and I don’t see where some of the bills before Congress really address that–putting doctors on salaries, instituting a universal computerized health record system, reducing duplicate diagnostic tests, etc.
Patients themselves might start by asking their doctors to treat them with the oldest, cheapest drugs that are still effective against acute illnesses like sinus infections or for mild chronic problems like RLS. I also price compare at various pharmacies. One of the meds my son takes costs $170 at one pharmacy … and $50 less at one that’s a mile away. And if you tell a doc that you can’t pay for a CT scan, but you could pay for an ultrasound or x-ray, you can often get just as good a diagnosis.
Thanks for the prayers. I’m sure the offer is kindly meant.
Who knows? Maybe they’ll lower my BP. Maybe they’ll help you think a bit more about making offhand comments that indicate that people can get health care if they just bother to get on the phone.
on September 19th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
“Michael, your argument reduces to this: We should be willing to allow 45,000 Americans to die every year on the chance that states that do not now extend abortion rights to Medicaid recipients will do so and will result in a theoretically larger number of aborted fetuses.
Is there no middle ground?”
Of course there is – implement reform that provides insurance to the uninsured and retains (or even strengthens) current restrictions on federal government spending on abortion.
http://www.usccb.org/healthcare/
on September 19th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
To reiterate what I just posted: there is no reason that healthcare reform and maintaining current federal abortion funding restrictions should be an either/or proposition. Achieving both should be eminently possible, but only if we make our voices heard. Any American reading this can work to bring about both by contacting your US Representative and your US Senators and telling them that this is what you want.
Show some solidarity with the poorest and most vulnerable. Demonstrate a preferential option for the poor.
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
on September 19th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
For Ann and whoever else might be interested.
Unless I’m mistaken, our faith does not recognize the distinction between so-called “deserving poor people” and “undeserving poor people,” whatever they have done or failed to do. They all deserve food clothing shelter and help when they are ill.
I readily acknowledge that, rightly, there are disagreements about how best to arrange our public and private systems to provide for those in need. In formulating policies, of course one has to take into consideration what resources you have and can count on having in the future.BUT the rationale for any Christianly defensible policy that leaves some people still in desperate need can never be that these people have forfeited their right to our assistance. More positively, the rationale for any defensible pollicy must be that it addresses the needs of the needy population at least as well as any available alternative.
We christians live in a pluralistic society. Many people do not share our religious convictions. Our political life reflects this reality. So a key consideration for any policy proposal is that it can gain the pollitical support necessary to adopt it. Nonetheless, for us believers, we cannot rightly fall into the trap of accepting any claim that there is any such thing as an “undeserving poor person.”
My computer remains intact, but its long-range fate is not clear at this point.
on September 19th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
“BUT the rationale for any Christianly defensible policy that leaves some people still in desperate need can never be that these people have forfeited their right to our assistance. More positively, the rationale for any defensible pollicy must be that it addresses the needs of the needy population at least as well as any available alternative.”
Hi, Bernard, this is a very interesting discussion. If I may present a couple of data points that have some bearing on this: our local homeless shelters – called PADS – welcome all who need a place to sleep. But the shelters do attach some strings, in that they have expectations of responsible behavior. Thus a person receiving their services must not bring in weapons or alcohol or drugs, must not be unruly or violent, and so on. The shelters do eject – and even on occasion permanently ban – offenders from their shelter if these rules are violated, and I would say they are not wrong to do so, for a number of reasons: for the good of the others in the shelter, for the good of the volunteers, and even for the good of the offender. The offender may have nowhere else to go that night, but – so be it.
Likewise, Catholic Charities offers many services to those in need. But its usual expectation is that the client is expected to do their part in getting back on their feet, for example by actively searching for work, or checking into rehab.
I don’t think the government would be out of bounds in setting a base line of expectations for personal responsibility on the part of recipients of its health care largesse. In principle, I wouldn’t object to some of the expectations that private agencies like Catholic Charities impose. For example, if a person is unable to pay for health insurance because she is unemployed, but is able to work, she should be actively seeking a job. Another example, that unfortunately stands a decent chance of being enacted into law, and that is not as controversial as it should be, is that one must be a citizen of the United States to receive health care assistance. (Even the bishops, on their website, state only that legal immigrants are entitled to health care).
on September 19th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
I think there’s a difference between charity and justice. People have a right (I believe) to health care, whatever their financial status, and I think of that as just. Charity, on the other hand, is kind of like giving a gift with strings attached – you want to decide when to give it, how to give it, to whom to give it, and you want to decide what hoops they have to jumpt through to deserve it – you are in control. Giving everyone access to health care isn’t an act of charity.
on September 20th, 2009 at 10:44 am
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/18/AR2009091803501.html?referrer=facebook
“Papers Show Insurers Limited Coverage for Acne, Pregnancy”
[A proposal to make preexisting health conditions irrelevant in the sale of insurance policies could help not just the seriously ill but also people who might consider themselves healthy, documents released Friday by a California-based advocacy group illustrate.]
on September 20th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Jim, your point about attaching strings to help for the poor has much merit. It the strings are based exclusively on the fact that resources are limited rather than on a judgment that some persons are “unworthy” of help, then that is a defensible prudential decision with which I would have no quarrel. A test for whether the strings are of this sort would be whether the “string makers” would support other agencies, governmental or otherwise, in their efforts to help those who are blocked by their strings.
What’s crucial from a Christian perspective, is that no one, whatever he or she has done or failed to do, be judged as unworthy of having access to the necessities. To make such a judgment is tantamount to “playing God.”
Again, I recognize the constraints that political reality imposes on dealing with the poor, but so far as I can see, the Christian principle is unequivocal and unconditional. And, it’s worthy of note, that depriving even the most infamous criminal convicts of these necessities is forbidden by our U. S. Constitution.
on September 20th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Bernard–
I do not think and have never said that deadbeats ought to be denied good health care. But there are some deadbeats among the poor (as there are in all financial levels of society) and it is charity, not justice, that demands they be covered too. If liberals would recognize that fact they (yes, you) would understand the opposition to universal health care in some quarters, especially among some of the ex-poor who worked so hard to get out of poverty. And understanimg is desperately needed for good legislation to be passed.
I think we could use a thread sometime about the demands of justice and the demands of charity.
Have mercy on yoir guiltless computer. Both justice and charity demand it :-)
on September 20th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
deadbeats
Strange, I don’t remember Jesus using that word. “Blessed are the poor, except, of course, the deadbeats” :)
on September 20th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Ann, let me try to say something about your concerns.
Re food: Sufficient nutrition to sustain life and the normal ability to function is a human right and therefore a matter of justice. Food variety, tastiness etc. may be matters of charity rather than justice.
Re clothing and shelter: Ditto.
Re health care: This is tricky. Providing some relief from life threatening diseases, e.g., providing some access to the health care system for people who have serious illnesses is surely a matter of justice. But medical pharmacology, technology, etc. has progressed to the point that, if Daniel Callahan is right, it is economically unsustainable to provide everything now available to everyone who wants it. Should it be denied to everyone because it cannot be made available to everyone? No. But if it is provided to some, on whatever grounds (ability to pay, special talents, etc.) then determining who gets the treatment and who doesn’t and what criteria are used to make these decisions is, or at least may be, a matter of justice.
For example, I’d say that no one is entitled by justice to a heart or liver transplant. Someone may offer to be a donor out of charity, but no one is obligated to do so. But if, as is the case in the U. S. there is an established procedure for determining who is an acceptable candidate for receiving such a transplant, then the procedure itself should be open to all who meet the criteria and the system ought to be administered fairly.
This transplant example barely scratches the surface of the complexity of determining what justice requires of the health care system. But that complexity does not justify failing to wrestle with the matter fairness which, here as in matters of food, etc. is something to which everyone has some unconditional right just by the fact of being human, a right that they cannot forfeit whatever they do.
Or so I think, Ann. Thanks for pushing this matter. It is, as you say, important.
on September 21st, 2009 at 9:47 am
“If the strings are based exclusively on the fact that resources are limited rather than on a judgment that some persons are “unworthy” of help, then that is a defensible prudential decision with which I would have no quarrel. A test for whether the strings are of this sort would be whether the “string makers” would support other agencies, governmental or otherwise, in their efforts to help those who are blocked by their strings.”
Bernard, I agree with you. I’d add that there is a third reason for attaching strings: for the good of the client herself. The two examples I came up with, Catholic Charities and PADS, are driven by religious motives (I’m not certain that PADS is an explicitly religious organization, but the network consists mostly or entirely of Christian churches in the area), and so evince a Christian sensitivity to the good of the entire person – physical, mental, spiritual, emotional. Whether the government should – or can – provide care from this set of motives is not clear.
I believe that I am now veering close to some of the underlying reasons for conservative distaste for health care reform, at least as envisioned by this Congress and this Administration: once we concede that health care is a human right, the question immediately arises, “who is responsible for my health care?” If the answer is, “I am primarily responsible; and if I am unable to fulfill that responsibility, the next in line is my family” – a point of view for which there would almost certainly be a consensus among conservatives – then that implies a number of things about me and my family: the need to take responsibility by working, and saving, and having insurance.
The US has been down this road fairly recently. I’m thinking of the limits on public aid that were put in place during the Clinton administration.
on September 21st, 2009 at 12:51 pm
It is our Christian duty to try to help save the 45,000 folk that studies show, die each year for lack of medical care, however we would also do well to try to save the 1,000,000 or so babies who die each year in the USA via home-grown American abortionists.
on September 21st, 2009 at 12:56 pm
And I forgot,
To use the same terms and emasure the Harvard researchers used; 1,000,000 deaths each years from abortion is 22 deaths every 12 minutes.
1 death per each 12 minutes for lack of medical care is a serious matter.
22 deaths per each 12 minutes via abortion is also a serious matter.
on September 21st, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Jim, just a last remark. Being poor, with no end in sight, plays havoc with more than a few people. Their families are often in dire straits as well. Bluntly, there’s no feasible way for lots of families to take care of themselves. When, if ever, on your proposal do I become responsible, as the Bible says so often, fir the stranger, the stranger child, the stranger addict, the stranger cripple? We’ve just got to face up to the fact that a large number of people, some through faults they have committed in the past but cannot now repair, need our help to survive and function at anything near normal levels. What do we Christians do or support TODAY to come to the aid of these broken suffering people who so many conservatives seem to have nothing to say but “Pull up yous socks!” These people have no socks!
May I suggest that you read some of Jonathan Kozol’s stuff about NYC. It’s some years old, but the kinds of problems he exposes are far from gone in our society.
on September 21st, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Bernard, you’re right … and as you’ve said a couple of times (and with which I strongly agree) – we can’t deem anyone “unworthy” of help.
It’s worth recalling that the poorest of the poor and many of the most vulnerable in the US – children and seniors – are actually, in some respects, better off than the working poor and a big chunk of the middle class, because they do have government-provided health insurance available, i.e. Medicaid, CHIP and Medicare respectively. That’s not to suggest that people of every economic or social classes don’t suffer from illnesses and dysfunctions like depression, alcoholism or drug addiction that can ruin their personal lives and wreak havoc with their families. But, in the interest of framing the situation in the US accurately, we don’t need to worry as much about the very neediest, because we’ve already provided for them – and that’s a reason to rejoice.
It’s as if an apartment building is engulfed in flames, and there are firefighters below on the street on two sides of the building, holding those round nets that catch jumpers – but people are jumping from all four sides.
on September 21st, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Interesting! So, Jim, now we are going to offer health coverage but make it “means tested?”
As Vincent dePaul said: “The Poor you will always have with you”…..
The roughly 40-70 million uninsured or underinsured can benefit from universal health care. That does not mean that a percentage of those folks will not abuse the system – either because of mental illness, drug abuse, family breakdown, and even plain laziness.
But, how would you “means test” health coverage – doesn’t that inherently deny coverage but just using different means? Would suggest that you think this through……..
Reality – no matter what plan we pass, there will still be 3-5% of the population with no insurance coverage + 12 million illegal immigrants ….all who still can be treated at any ER by federal mandate.
on September 21st, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Bill – The fact that we do not allow hospitals in our land to turn people away from the emergency rooms simply because they do not have medical insurance testifies that regarding this, we do have a conscience and we do know what is right. We know is it our Christian duty to care for those in need.
As a practical matter, of course it is better to care for people in a more routine manner rather than waiting until they need to hit the emergency rooms; that is part of why we are discussing helath care reform. Indeed, no matter what one’s thoughts on health care reform are, this at least, is one thing upon which almost everyone agrees.
You are probably also correct in that no matter what we as a society do, some folks will fall through the cracks, and that is why – regardless of how this health care reform turns out – we should guard and enforce the federal mandate that requires emergency rooms accept all comers, whether they have insurance or not. No matter what we do, we will definitely still need that law.
on September 21st, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Bill – I haven’t suggested, or even used the term, “means testing”. Clearly, you’ve misunderstood my views, though. You might want to go back and re-read my comments to get a more accurate notion of my views of health care for the poor.
on October 1st, 2009 at 2:40 pm
I’m new to this site but wandered unto it and found the posts fairly well-reasoned and without a great deal of acrimony/nastiness. I hope I help it to remain so.
Just one comment. Instead of bogging ourselves down with talk, talk talk, why don’t we simply look at other developed countries which have workable national (universal is the wrong word) health care solutions?
Surely we cannot think that we are too big, or too unique to do this?