Affordable Health Care is a Christian Act

[Jerry Miah]

One thing that is often overlooked in this controversy is that the intent of President Obama's Affordable Health Care Act is fix one of the biggest disgraces of the USA, namely that we are the last industrialized country without a national health care system, and this results in an incalculable amount of suffering, death and hardship for Americans.

Let's talk about the immoral situation that has been the USA without a decent health care system: The 45,000 people dying in the USA for lack of adequate health care. The 62% of bankruptcies resulting from family medical costs, the 50% (over half a million homes) of foreclosures that came from medical costs. If such death and hardship were caused by a natural disaster or enemy attack, it would be an unparalleled catastrophe, but it's been happening every year. Think about how much suffering comes from just one tragic death and then multiply it by 45,000, think about thousands of homeless families, and then you'll realize that, in trying to finally find a solution to this mess, Obama is doing a very Christian and heroic thing.

We live in a pluralistic democracy which means we all pay taxes for things we don't want to necessarily support -- for the death penalty, for ongoing war, for weapons of mass destruction -- but that's the price we pay for living in this kind of society. We have to make the same (and actually minor) compromises to correct this moral evil of lack of health care access. Whether with the progressive Single Payer plan or this conservative solution of business/individual mandated health insurance, various groups paying indirectly for something they would rather not is just a reality of life, and one they should welcome in order to right the moral evil of lack of health care access.

I have international clients in Spain (AKA 70% Catholic Spain) and when I tell them about this controversy they think I am kidding. They would never dream of having a Catholic mandates in their national health care system.

So consider the fact that finally creating some kind of system for universal health care access -- a concept long urged by US Council of Catholic Bishops -- is in itself a humane act that would certainly qualify as Christian in terms of its goal of relieving the human suffering on a catastrophic scale that is going on in this country. Support the efforts in our country to correct this moral wrong.

[Nate13]

What proof do you have that nationalizing health care is the best response to the problem? Why is it necessary for the government to cover everyone's health insurance and not just the needy you have pointed out? A nationalized health care system seems as silly a solution as a national food stamp program where everyone receives food stamps regardless of whether they need them. I'd also add that a nationalized health care system does nobody any good if the country goes bankrupt in its attempt to pay for it.

Could you explain what you find wrong with the Republican plan to form health savings accounts and why you find that to be immoral?

[ValPal]

I've learned quite a lot about the health care system over the past several years, due to a friend of mine have terminal cancer. Here's an example of the utter nonsense that goes on. This person was initially receiving treatments at $6,000 a pop from a private doctor. Once Medicare kicked in, this person had to be treated at a hospital. What was the cost for the same treatment? $33,000.

That's government at work. I hate to be a pessimist, but maybe it is better that the government take over the system. The sooner they do that, the quicker it will go bankrupt, and the quicker we can go back to the drawing board.

[JimG]

Originally Posted by ValPal

I've learned quite a lot about the health care system over the past several years, due to a friend of mine have terminal cancer. Here's an example of the utter nonsense that goes on. This person was initially receiving treatments at $6,000 a pop from a private doctor. Once Medicare kicked in, this person had to be treated at a hospital. What was the cost for the same treatment? $33,000.

That's government at work. I hate to be a pessimist, but maybe it is better that the government take over the system. The sooner they do that, the quicker it will go bankrupt, and the quicker we can go back to the drawing board.

Unfortunately, national bankruptcy is an even more urgent problem than health care. A bankrupt government is no help to anyone. It simply will push civil society into chaos. It's the most urgent problem facing the nation.

As for the HHS mandate, the correct response of Catholic institutions is to refuse to follow it, refuse to pay fines, and refuse to close down. Just continue to follow the mission as usual.

http://thisroamincatholic.blogspot.com/?view=classic

[medaroge]

Originally Posted by ValPal

Here's an example of the utter nonsense that goes on. This person was initially receiving treatments at $6,000 a pop from a private doctor. Once Medicare kicked in, this person had to be treated at a hospital. What was the cost for the same treatment? $33,000.

Yup. Also, many co-pay assist groups only help out if you are not on a government funded plan (they know the gov. will pay full price!).

[Wiljo2050]

Originally Posted by Nate13

What proof do you have that nationalizing health care is the best response to the problem? Why is it necessary for the government to cover everyone's health insurance and not just the needy you have pointed out? A nationalized health care system seems as silly a solution as a national food stamp program where everyone receives food stamps regardless of whether they need them. I'd also add that a nationalized health care system does nobody any good if the country goes bankrupt in its attempt to pay for it.

Could you explain what you find wrong with the Republican plan to form health savings accounts and why you find that to be immoral?

[Wiljo2050]

Originally Posted by Nate13

What proof do you have that nationalizing health care is the best response to the problem? Why is it necessary for the government to cover everyone's health insurance and not just the needy you have pointed out? A nationalized health care system seems as silly a solution as a national food stamp program where everyone receives food stamps regardless of whether they need them. I'd also add that a nationalized health care system does nobody any good if the country goes bankrupt in its attempt to pay for it.

Could you explain what you find wrong with the Republican plan to form health savings accounts and why you find that to be immoral?

[sw85]

Originally Posted by Jerry Miah

One thing that is often overlooked in this controversy is that the intent of President Obama's Affordable Health Care Act is fix one of the biggest disgraces of the USA, namely that we are the last industrialized country without a national health care system, and this results in an incalculable amount of suffering, death and hardship for Americans.

OK, well, it seems to me the bishops' main problem is being coerced into paying for ethically objectionable treatments.

Can you conjure up a terribly compelling reason why, in the name of alleviating suffering and death, the Catholic Church should be compelled to pay, against its will, for something it has long taught is a moral abomination?

[kingofseoul]

Originally Posted by sw85

OK, well, it seems to me the bishops' main problem is being coerced into paying for ethically objectionable treatments.

Can you conjure up a terribly compelling reason why, in the name of alleviating suffering and death, the Catholic Church should be compelled to pay, against its will, for something it has long taught is a moral abomination?

You make a great case for universal health care. I agree Catholics should not have to pay for morally objectionable treatments under the current system. It's because the system doesn't work.

However, maybe I'm a hypocrite. I certainly think Christian Scientists should pay for an employee's health care even though they find the whole idea of medicine objectionable.

The Church has also supported universal health care since 1919. This attitude I've seen in America of "health care is great as long as I don't have to pay for someone else", I find selfish and appalling. In the US, some lives are more important than others. People with more money get better treatment. And I think every Catholic should find that objectionable or, at the very least, sad.

[Nate13]

Originally Posted by kingofseoul

You make a great case for universal health care. I agree Catholics should not have to pay for morally objectionable treatments under the current system. It's because the system doesn't work.

However, maybe I'm a hypocrite. I certainly think Christian Scientists should pay for an employee's health care even though they find the whole idea of medicine objectionable.

The Church has also supported universal health care since 1919. This attitude I've seen in America of "health care is great as long as I don't have to pay for someone else", I find selfish and appalling. In the US, some lives are more important than others. People with more money get better treatment. And I think every Catholic should find that objectionable or, at the very least, sad.

Do you also find it appalling that some in the U.S eat better than others do? What good will it do a poor person to have great healthcare if they have diabetes and can afford the drugs, but can't afford to eat the way they should? Do you also support a national food insurance program because that would seem to be the logical solution to the problem if we approach it the same way you want to approach healthcare. I propose we all pay into a fund that divvies out the same amount of money to everyone to spend on food. Then no one will have to feel bad that they are eating better than others.

And no we can't only set up a system for the people who need it, we have to make sure everyone in the country is included. Making a program that targets those who are only in need would make no sense at all....

[kingofseoul]

Originally Posted by Nate13

Do you also find it appalling that some in the U.S eat better than others do? What good will it do a poor person to have great healthcare if they have diabetes and can afford the drugs, but can't afford to eat the way they should? Do you also support a national food insurance program because that would seem to be the logical solution to the problem if we approach it the same way you want to approach healthcare. I propose we all pay into a fund that divvies out the same amount of money to everyone to spend on food. Then no one will have to feel bad that they are eating better than others.

And no we can't only set up a system for the people who need it, we have to make sure everyone in the country is included. Making a program that targets those who are only in need would make no sense at all....

In fact I do find it appalling that some people eat well and others don't have enough to eat. And so does the Catholic Church. I do not think all poor people are junk food-eating diabetics. At least the poor people I've met aren't.

But your analogy is wrong anyway. It's not about eating a steak versus a McRib. It's about getting treatment for a disease versus not getting any treatment at all. And this isn't even the very poor. Those of us who work can watch their entire life savings get wiped out if we get sick and the insurance companies decide they don't want to pay anymore. And that's just a simple observation. I happens all the time. And I do find that appalling because you can't just refuse a medical treatment because it's too expensive--unless you think dying to save the taxpayers or insurance companies money is some kind of virtue.

As for "my" healthcare approach, it's not mine at all. It's the approach of the Catholic Church--universal health care. With all this mandate talk, I thiink a lot of Us are losing sight of that.

[Nate13]

Originally Posted by kingofseoul

In fact I do find it appalling that some people eat well and others don't have enough to eat. And so does the Catholic Church. I do not think all poor people are junk food-eating diabetics. At least the poor people I've met aren't.

But your analogy is wrong anyway. It's not about eating a steak versus a McRib. It's about getting treatment for a disease versus not getting any treatment at all. And this isn't even the very poor. Those of us who work can watch their entire life savings get wiped out if we get sick and the insurance companies decide they don't want to pay anymore. And that's just a simple observation. I happens all the time. And I do find that appalling because you can't just refuse a medical treatment because it's too expensive--unless you think dying to save the taxpayers or insurance companies money is some kind of virtue.

As for "my" healthcare approach, it's not mine at all. It's the approach of the Catholic Church--universal health care. With all this mandate talk, I thiink a lot of Us are losing sight of that.

The fact is we agree that there is a problem yet disagree on the solution. It seems to me that if you see a problem with the food situation we should handle it the same way you want to handle healthcare. We will all pay into a big pot of money and the government will breakdown how much money we can spend on each product and give out the same amount of money to everyone. This is essentially what you want it to do for healthcare.

I think we have a reasonable solution for food with food stamps and I'm asking you why we don't use that same kind of system for those who don't have healthcare? Why does the government have to take over everyone's healthcare when its only something like 5-10% of the country that don't have it? Why not set up a program for healthcare tied into the welfare/unemployment system so those without jobs and healthcare can get access to it?

This is why you have conservatives throwing a fit. There are a lot of different ways this problem could be approached and the liberals have just happened to pick the one that involves the most federal government input and makes 80% of the country dependent on the government that don't need to be.

Also please stop demonizing conservatives as "not caring" just because we don't agree with your way of trying to solve the problem.

[Cristiano]

I think that people here are quite confused. Health care is not a right, as Christians we are to suffer in order to become holier. As a Christian I have moral obligations toward others but that does not create rights or entitlements for other people.

[Nate13]

Originally Posted by Cristiano

I think that people here are quite confused. Health care is not a right, as Christians we are to suffer in order to become holier. As a Christian I have moral obligations toward others but that does not create rights or entitlements for other people.

Exactly and the Orthodox Catholics are the ones accused of wanting to make their religious views laws Don't forget that the Christian thing to do is to raise taxes as well.

[Charlemagne II]

Tending to the sick was preached by Jesus as a voluntary act of individuals with merit both for the giver and the sick.

We have made it a scam in which the State seizes as much money as it can from the taxpayers (which is never enough) and the physicians seize as much money as they can from the State (which also is never enough). Ergo, at some point the system goes bust!

How is socialized medicine Christian?