Do you think the government should take care of people with "pre-existing medical conditions?


#1

Do you think the government ( tax payers) should take care of people with preexisting medical conditions?


#2
Summary

May be going against my better judgment answering here…

I think someone probably should - otherwise the option for a lot of people is pretty much “sit around doing nothing”. No medical treatment = no job, in many cases. All things considered, it’s better that people with long-term but manageable health problems have the ability to work and live as normal lives as we can manage, than having people depend on charity for a lack of medical care.

From what I’ve seen, private charity tends to gear towards emergencies rather than long-term aid. People tend to get frustrated with conditions that don’t improve over time, or that take a long time to improve. (That’s a very common issue with private charity - people tend to prefer immediate, tangible results over long-term progress.) I’m not convinced given our social setup we’re capable of adequately creating a situation where people with pre-existing conditions can get effective healthcare without government backing. And as a practical matter, we want to avoid having people bounce in and out of emergency care (which already comes out of government funds in many cases) or relying on welfare due to lack of stable treatment.


#4

No. Just let them suffer. Money is more important, right? What do you think?


#5

Short answer: yes. I’d sure rather see my tax dollars go there than to something like a wall.


#6

Why doesn’t Congress make a law that says private insurance companies cannot discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions. Is the argument that forcing companies to do this would be economically unsustainable for these companies? Isn’t there some economic model that could be built that could avoid further expansions of Medicaid and Medicare (which are already facing problems)?

I say as a last resort, sure. But I’d like to hope that smart people could come up with a free market (or near free market) solution that avoided us expanding the welfare state that is already eating up most of the government budget.


#7

… is there not yet another option, than one that treats basic health, as a commodity? Smart people might look at other than what the market will bear.


#8

Well, I think they should enforce insurance companies to do so.


#9

The fundamental free market problem here is that some people need more medical care to stay healthy than they can reasonably pay. This is going to be especially true for those with genetic conditions or conditions acquired in childhood or early adulthood - so before they have a chance to really establish a job and savings. It’s hard to figure how you could establish a free market solution in such a case. The free market won’t generally provide resources that people can’t pay for, no matter how necessary.


#10

Health care is a commodity–it’s a service.


#11

True and false. Medicines should be separate from service at least.


#12

Not if the people with the pre-existing conditions can take care of themselves.

Not everyone is broke you know, and not even everyone with a “preexisting medical condition”.

Now if you are talking about helping the indigents, regardless of whether or not their conditions are “preexisting” , that’s a different story.


#13

You’re already taking care of them through your mandated insurance premiums.

Also remember that pregnancy is considered a pre-existing condition. My pro-life convictions impel me to favor any support for pregnant women.


#14

What mandated insurance premiums? The individual mandate in the ACA is long gone.


#15

I think the biggest concern is avoiding a welfare gap. Most assistance is calculated off of net income. If your income is below a certain amount, you get food or housing assistance. If it’s above that, you don’t.

But preexisting conditions can vary wildly in terms of expense. So you end up with people who are working and would be making enough money to live on if they didn’t have to pay for medical care too. But they don’t make enough to pay both ordinary living expenses and medical expenses. The current welfare system doesn’t handle that well.


#16

Hmmm! The Church “invented” health care for the poor.
If people would be more interested in reading history they would find that out.
Many of the monastic orders for example were also devoted to provide health care to the poor. The rich people could afford to call a doctor. And yes doctors were available since antiquity. The “Hippocratic Oath” is an oath historically taken by physicians originated from the Greek physician Hippocrates who lived (460–370 BC),

Check this link for more info on the work done by the Catholic Church on health care:
https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Who-invented-HOSPITALS--History-of-Healthcare---Catholic-contributions-to-it.html?soid=1108762609255&aid=NIQnEqgQdG0


#17

I’ll gladly raise my taxes to help people who need health care.
But yeah I know it’s a complicated system.


#18

Here in the United States, we already have Medicaid as well as other programs to help THE POOR who need health care. But traditionally, the vast majority of us dealt with health care on a private basis.


#19

As a Political Science major who has actively studied this topic and have written extensively on it, yep!


#20

At the end of the day, I don’t even care for the idea of this country in the modern sense. I just wish the Church dictated policy to begin with. And then we could go back to doing this on a larger and more organized scale. And cast out anyone who doesn’t like a society beholden to God… they could go elsewhere to form their silly “toy” governments.

Call me a closet monarchist. :stuck_out_tongue:


#21

That’s largely what I was referring to with the welfare gap - it’s been a long-standing issue with medicaid and getting worse with the increasing load of part time jobs. A lot of people found themselves too rich to be on medicaid, but not rich enough to afford the prices private companies wanted to cover their conditions. I know people would even deliberately limit their income because otherwise they’d be cut off welfare and not have enough money to pay their own expenses.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.