A Right to Free Health Care
by Ted Slater on 07/17/2009 at 12:45 PM
That's a problematic phrase: "A Right to Free Health Care."
First, the term "free health care" doesn't even make sense. Most Health care professionals need to earn a living, their facilities require money to operate, and their supplies can get expensive. Money comes from somewhere to cover the costs of staff and operations and medications. If that money doesn't come from you directly, it comes from you indirectly through your insurance policy or through your taxes. What's not covered by your personal taxes comes from taxes you pay on food or utilities or other stuff, or from taxes paid by your employer.
So there you go: There's no such thing as "free" health care. You don't get something for nothing unless, as my dad told me when I was a kid, someone somewhere some time gets nothing for something.
Second, there is no "right" granted either in our Constitution or in the laws of nature or nature's God to free health care. As Mike explained so well in the 119th comment on "I <3 Government Health Care":
The reason why health care is not a right is because it is a service, provided by human beings.
To assert the right to a service is to assert the right to force another human being to provide it to you. In other words, to force someone else to be your slave.
There can be no such thing as the right to enslave. Such a concept invalidates the very concept of rights in the first place. You can't assert the right to take away someone else's free will.
You have a right to life. You have a right to liberty. You have a right to pursue happiness. You have a right to self-defense. You don't have a right to demand that someone else take care of your health problems. Sorry.
Health care is good. To receive it is a blessing, and to give it reflects our Lord's loving character. But, sad to say, you don't have a right to it. And it sure don't come free.
1. Kelo said the following at 12:59 PM on Jul 17:
The rights enumerated in the Constitution are negative rights--things the government may not do. It may not restrict free speech. It may not do this or that. There are no rights in the Contitution to anything.
On a different note, someone please help me: what the heck does <3 mean?
2. obewan said the following at 1:01 PM on Jul 17:
"You have a right to self-defense. You don't have a right to demand that someone else take care of your health problems. Sorry." (Ted)
-------------------------------
Yet, "demand" is exactly what those union and professional people so "blessed" as to have health insurance have done. I would not even consider a position in my profession that does not include employer provided "health care", or the extra salary required to buy my own.
And I agree, it is not free. People pay for it for me through increased cost of goods and services, or I pay for it myself through a lower salary depending on your perspective.
So, the reality of your statement is that the disenfranchised and people in low paying non-professional positions have no "right" to health care.
3. Dan Gill said the following at 1:32 PM on Jul 17:
Nobody has a right to health care. Some have managed to negotiate insurance through their professions.
I've been through times of unemployment and of contract work where I had to buy my own health insurance, and I didn't like it much. But it was something I knew I needed.
Kelo, I'd like to know the same thing.
4. Julianne said the following at 1:34 PM on Jul 17:
So how do we reform a broken system where American citizens are currently unable to pursue rights to happiness, life and liberty because they are victims of a failing and profit oriented institution?
How do we consider the 40 million who aren't covered by any kind of health care, who must rely on loopholes and luck and understaffed and under supplied 'free' clinics (and yes, increasing the debts of such hospitals and clinics) in order to address their health concerns?
How do we love in tangible ways that address health concerns now, without blanket statements about the reasons people are sick or the worth (or motives) of people who rely on 'free' options?
How are we planning for the future, creating a responsible, realistic and comprehensive plan that will actually create a sustainable approach to health care?
I've got a lot of questions about what reform should and can be, but I sincerely hope that as Christians we will find a way to mesh sacrificial and Christ-like love with God given wisdom and priority.
So Ted, I agree with you that it's misleading to claim 'free' health care for the uninsured, but the concept of free and deserved health care, something we go to great lengths to instill as a value in third world nations - how do we deal with it in our own?
5. Tami said the following at 1:40 PM on Jul 17:
Just in case I'm not already the 50th person to post this comment as a response...
Kelo -- If you type "<3" into Facebook it makes a heart. Hence "I (heart) Government Health Care."
6. Mrs. Spit said the following at 1:44 PM on Jul 17:
Ted and others:
It is equally worth noting that other countries have explicitly enumerated a right to universal health care, free in the sense that provision is not based on ability to pay for the services needed.
In Canada, this right applies in the Canada Health Act, under the 5 principles enumerated under the Act. I would assume other not-for profit healthcare systems have the similar rights listed. That would make health care a human right in Canada.
America, and her citizens obviously have the right to both believe what they wish about healthcare, and to advocate for various types of systems.
What America may not do is limit the debate on what is or is not a human right for the rest of the world, based on what is in her Constitution at this point in her history.
So, to be rather more accurate, Ted, you do not believe, with some reasoning, based on American legislation, that Health Care is a fundamental right for Americans. That's fine. But please be much more accurate in your editorial above. Every place you say "you", please substitute "American citizens".
Other countries have reviewed the situation, and reached very different conclusions. We have a right to healthcare under our legislation.
As to the question of both Natural Law and God's Law, I'll point out that the father of Canada's "free" healthcare system was a Baptist Minister.
7. Deanna said the following at 1:48 PM on Jul 17:
I'm so glad someone is finally bringing up the fact that EVERYONE will pay for gov. health care - that cereal you love so much? The company that makes that is going to have to pay higher taxes to cover the health care, which means you pay more for the cereal... not to mention the store where you buy the cereal.
I also find it astonishing how little attention is being brought to the fact that the bill, as it stands before Congress right now, includes a requirement for abortion to be covered - whether you have gov. health care of private health care, you will be required to have abortion covered. Which means everyone will be paying and funding abortions.
Instead, why don't we try to protect our medical providers from the outrageous lawsuits, which require them to buy more expensive malpractice insurance... why don't we give better tax discounts for out-of-pocket medical expenses. Maybe, instead of forcing a single gal like me to pay $2K (or whatever the number is now) before I can start to deduct it from my taxes, maybe instead drop that number to 0. Then, if someone wants to buy their own insurance, it will be entirely tax-free.
Just seems like there are a lot of other options not considered, but much more practical.
8. Kit said the following at 1:49 PM on Jul 17:
Ted,
Your post is good as far as it goes, but the way it is presented is as fact not opinion.
#1-Yes. Very good point.
I do think, personally, that healthcare, especially with the current system, is as much of a moral issue as anything else.
9. Andrea-Elena said the following at 1:57 PM on Jul 17:
Kelo: <3 makes a heart (tilt your head sideways to view it)... thus... I *heart* Government Health Care, which translates to "I Love Government Health Care." Does that help? =)
******************************************
Overall, I agree with Ted on this one. I see the issue not so much as insurance being too expensive but the costs of health care seeming to be outrageous in some areas. Are all products, services, procedures, and such worth the price put on them? Not all. Some prices do need to be reduced.
10. Kristy said the following at 2:02 PM on Jul 17:
For #1 and #3 (and whoever else wants to know)...the "<3" is a heart drawn sideways, just like ":-)" is a smilie face drawn sideways.
Don't you feel better now that that really important detail has been cleared up? Heh heh!
11. Ted Slater said the following at 2:07 PM on Jul 17:
obewan -- I'd consider myself a "professional," and I haven't demanded free health care. Yes, my employer pays part, but I pay over $5,000 per year to provide health insurance for my family. That doesn't include what we pay in deductibles.
Yes, many are uninsured because of financial difficulty or preexisting conditions.
But many, many think they're healthy enough and spend that $5,000/year on eating out and large screen TVs and nice cars and fast computers and nice homes. And when calamity hits, they've got their large screen TV ... and large medical bills.
That's not all, of course. But that scenario reflects a LOT of those who go into bankruptcy because they received medical care which they later could not pay for.
12. Saidahwk said the following at 2:15 PM on Jul 17:
Kelo, Dan, <3 is a sideways heart. Cran your head to the right or turn your laptop counter-clockwise and you'll see it...
As for healthcare, it's no one's right. However, to assert that it's not fair that some people have access to health care and others don't is something like complaining that some people make more money than others.
Now, would it be great if someone said, "hey, you know, I'd like to help you get health care... on me" ? Heck yeah! But you can't walk up to your local government representative and go, "you know, I really need health care; you should fine the rich guy down the street for being rich and pay for my doctor's appointment."
Now, Christians are supposed to take care of others. For some reason, the only major group that really gets this is the Mormons. But you can't make anyone give you anything.
And Obewan, really, a professional might "demand" health insurance or higher pay, but his employer gives it to him, because he's getting something out of it, too; a highly qualified employee. The employee is just negotiating his wages. But why does Citizen A have to give Citizen B anything? Citizen B isn't doing any service for me. Health insurance as apart of your benefits or higher wages is something you get in return for a service. So why should Citizen A pay Citizen B anything? If Citizen B needs health insurance (which, honestly, with a deliberately healthy lifestyle, he may not), why doesn't he get it the way rest of the world got it; working at a profession and getting a better job?
Not to say that giving people health care isn't a nice thing to do. But no one has a right to it.
13. Adam said the following at 2:15 PM on Jul 17:
There is no right to health care.
A priest and a Levite were well within their rights to just pass on by on the other side of the road.
The man who fell among thieves had no right to be helped.
http://www2.selu.edu/Academics/Faculty/scraig/gansberg.html>38 who didn't call the police had every right to just stand by and watch a murder. And she had no right to expect anyone to lift a finger to help her.
The question of health care is not one of rights. It is really more of a cultural discussion on what is important.
For some, the ability to prolong life and health is something worth paying for. For others, the freedoms that we sacrifice to make health care available to all are not worth it. For others, the money is better spent elsewhere.
14. Kate said the following at 2:20 PM on Jul 17:
I don't agree with having a healthcare system like they do in Europe and Canada. I don't think it so much that people want it for free, but it has to be affordable. But we as Christians can not say that it's really ok for some people to go without healthcare. That's sad and pathetic that people feel that way especially with the economic problems families are having right now. Have you even looked at healthcare costs right now. What if you lost your job, do you realize how much it costs to insure an entire family? Try putting yourself into other people's shoes and have some compassion.
15. Darren said the following at 2:24 PM on Jul 17:
Certainly, I feel that we should want our society to be more compassionate. I would like to think that part of this means that as a society, we would be willing to help those who are less fortunate. That said, the problem with a "right to free health care" is that its a very slippery slope. After all, what kind of healthcare are we talking about? Essential healthcare? Who decides what is essential?
What this ultimately means is that it doesn't matter how sick you are, it doesn't matter what rare disease or condition you've been afflicted with. None of this matters, because you have a "right to free healthcare" You have a right to the most expensive and extraordinary treatments that our healthcare system can invent. All of this may sound great, and maybe there is an argument to be made for this kind of system, but then you have to understand that someone has to pay for it.
When people talk about all the people who went bankrupt to pay for their medical care, they are not talking about people who couldn't pay the co-pay for the annual physical, they are talking about people with very serious medical problems and catastrophic illnesses. These poor unfortunate folks are not the median of the uninsured, they are in fact the outliers. But they could absorb much of the costs of nationalized medicine.
So when someone says that we all have a "right to free healthcare" what they are saying is that it doesn't matter how sick you are, it does matter what your prognosis is, you deserve every chance and we the people, are going to pay for it, no matter what the cost.
It's an ethical dilemma and honestly, I don't have the answer. There's a point in this argument where it does feel like we're all playing God. Nevertheless, these are the kind sof question that will arise should we arrive at the point where we say that there is a right to healthcare.
16. FutureMrsLarijani said the following at 2:57 PM on Jul 17:
Tami -
I had no idea how people made hearts on facebook!! I've been wondering for awhile. Thank you!!!
(incidentally, I did know that <3 is "cyber" for (heart))
17. Texas Craig said the following at 2:57 PM on Jul 17:
Ted:
I wholeheartedly agree that no one has a "right" to free health care. However, along those same lines, no one has a "right" to police protection, fire protection, access to the courts, streets, or any number of things. The reality is that any of these so-called rights derive from a social compact - whereby people group together and agree upon these principles and that they should be provided for the public good.
At one point, roads were provided solely through tolls, usually by private businesses. Similarly, under the medieval system of fiefdoms, protection was provided by the landowner to the serfs, in exchange for work and loyalty. Now, we all readily accept that government should provide for roads, police protection, etc.
What you are observing now is a shift in cultural norms of what else is expected as part of the societal compact. My guess is that 100 years from now, people in the U.S. will see basic health care as a "right" in the same way we see other governmental responsibilities.
But, for now, we are all part of the societal battle as this shift is taking place. No, health care is not free. But, the question is yet unresolved as to whether our society believes it is comparable to police protection, roads, etc., that should be afforded to all citizens.
As for me, I really don't know how I feel about it. In law school, I received a special concentration certificate in health care law, and I see both sides of the issue. There are many sources of our "so-called" healthcare problems in the U.S. (which are really quite silly, given how most of the world lives without the health care all Americans have access to; most people in India, China, Africa, most of South America, etc. do not have access to the health care even the poorest Americans can get).
The reality is we want everyone to have a healthcare Mercedes here in the U.S. Some people complain about how healthcare costs cause bankruptcy. Well, bankruptcy is a lot better than death, and people in Africa, India, China, etc. often would not even have the opportunity for bankruptcy. They would just die from their condition because they simply would not get the treatment in issue.
I wish people on both sides would get a nice dose of reality on this issue! :-)
18. Karen said the following at 3:09 PM on Jul 17:
Great article! Thanks for this reminder. I shared part of the quote you put up on my facebook account.
19. knit_tgz said the following at 3:12 PM on Jul 17:
2 honest questions, one from a Christian point of view and another from a simple pragmatic one:
1) (Christian) Isn't tending to the sick (like the Samaritan did, without asking) a duty of every moral person?
2) (pragmatic) Do we really want great numbers of sick people without health care, serving as breeding grounds for new diseases and as sources of contagion?
Think about it.
20. Ted Slater said the following at 3:33 PM on Jul 17:
Mrs. Spit (#6), you mention that "the father of Canada's "free" healthcare system was a Baptist Minister."
I should mention that former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are both "Baptist." Just saying.
I did a bit of research on this. Not sure who the official "father of Canada's healthcare system" is: Tommy Douglas or Claude Castonguay. If it's the latter, he's been coming out against what's become of the Canadian system, and is in favor of legalizing private health insurance and leasing space to entrepreneurial physicians and care-giving companies. If it's the former, well, the NDP socialist has no comment.
21. khalil said the following at 3:36 PM on Jul 17:
One of the current proposals for health care reform in the US essentially makes owning private (non-government) health care illegal.
The issue of mandating health care for everyone, while an important issue to address, is really not the *key* issue. The main issue surrounding this and other debates is the increasing power of the government and making people dependent on what it provides.
22. Joel said the following at 3:40 PM on Jul 17:
Juliann (4) Did you read the post and comment 1? We don't have a "broken" system that needs to be fixed. That implies that it should be functioning a certain way and it is not currently, but as it was just mentioned no one has a right via natural law or God's law, to compel others to do something for them, whether it be provide health care or cable tv. There is no free or deserved care. You procure those things through mutually voluntary transactions as you deem fit. The way to avoid blanket statements about the reasons people are sick or their motives is to not make those statements, and leave the decisions and consequences to the people who are actually affected by them. A "failing profit oriented institution," as long as it is privately owned and operated, can have no effect on your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It may make it easier or harder to procure the goods and services that it is selling, but that is its prerogative.
Conversely, any sort of government-run health care operation will by definition affect your rights to life, liberty, etc. because it operates by the exercise of force. Force by taxation, force by mandatory membership, force by pre-determined treatments and "cost of life" decisions. While all of these issues that you may or may not agree with are optional by your decision whether or not to participate in a particular health plan, when it's run by the government you have no choice but to be complicit in whatever they so choose. If you want to love in tangible ways, YOU donate to your local clinic, be a servant to the homeless, etc. Don't have the audacity to put a gun to someone else's head and tell them how they will love. That decision has to be made individually.
23. Ted Slater said the following at 3:47 PM on Jul 17:
Texas Craig (#17), you wrote that "no one has a 'right' to police protection, fire protection, access to the courts...."
Huh? Isn't providing protection and justice among the primary purposes of government? Those things are on a totally different level from some supposed "right" to health care.
24. Tami said the following at 4:02 PM on Jul 17:
FutureMrsLarijani (16) -- I'm here to help! ;)
25. Ian said the following at 4:05 PM on Jul 17:
Well, if nothing else, at least this disagreement over political ideologies is interesting; imagine how boring it'd be if everyone simply posted, "Yes, thanks Ted."
#19, knit-tgz brought up the term "pragmatic." It strikes me that the bulk of conservative arguments against socialist health-care reforms are pragmatic. But I wonder: is Pragmatism reconcileable with Christianity? If these concerns aren't mutually exclusive, does one have a priority over the other?
26. farmer Tom said the following at 4:15 PM on Jul 17:
12. Saidahwk said,
Now, would it be great if someone said, "hey, you know, I'd like to help you get health care... on me" ? Heck yeah! But you can't walk up to your local government representative and go, "you know, I really need health care; you should fine the rich guy down the street for being rich and pay for my doctor's appointment."
Well said!!
There is a passage of Scripture which is related to that, oh, what is it, let me think, it's in the OT ... Oh, I remember.
Exodus 20: 17
27. J said the following at 4:24 PM on Jul 17:
I'm an American who lives in Britain. I've really appreciated the national health service while over here. One question I have for most evangelical Americans is this: why do most of our reasons for whether or not to have socialized medicine come down to money? Wouldn't a better question be if we can better serve the "least of these" by providing for them via this? If your answer is no, is your church prepared to pay the extortionate medical fee for the homeless guy on the street with treatable cancer? If the church is not,that is a horrible indictment on the body of Christ in America.
28. farmer Tom said the following at 4:49 PM on Jul 17:
25. Ian said,
Sorry, but you are mistaken.
Pragmatism (from Dictionary.com)
An approach to philosophy, primarily held by American philosophers, which holds that the truth or meaning of a statement is to be measured by its practical (i.e., pragmatic) consequences. William James and John Dewey were pragmatists.(American Heritage)
1. Philosophy A movement consisting of varying but associated theories, originally developed by Charles S. Peirce and William James and distinguished by the doctrine that the meaning of an idea or a proposition lies in its observable practical consequences.
2. A practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems.(New American Heritage)
On the other hand, those who are truly conservative/constitutionalists, believe in absolute truth. We believe that unless there is a specific Constitutional provision for something, it is not within the role of the federal government to do that thing.
Myself as a Christian libertarian, believe that "the laws of nature and Nature's God" are the foundation for all law, and the commandment against theft eliminates the ability of government to take from me and give to someone else, even in an act of "charity" since even governments are subject to God's law.
Health care is a personal responsibility. Each and every person is responsible for their own health care. It is not my responsibility to pay for your health care, period. And your attempts to steal the fruit of my labor(money) is rooted in covetousness. You think that someone with more than you, what ever more is, money, insurance, cars, houses, cattle, land and on and on, should be forced to pay for your health care. This violates God's Law. You are a thief and covetous.
And to endorse a government program based on theft and covetousness, is immoral on its face. It is a direct violation of God's Law. Admit your sinful heart attitude and repent.
29. Texas Craig said the following at 4:53 PM on Jul 17:
Ted:
Your follow-up post (#23) proves my original point. Those basics (police protection, fire protection, etc.) have become so ingrained that you assume their provision is one of the fundamental purposes of government. But, like I pointed out in my original post, that was not always true. I expect that 100 years from now, people will be saying about basic health care, "Huh, but isn't that one of the primary purposes of government?" :-)
30. JB said the following at 5:02 PM on Jul 17:
The right to health care is derived from the natural, God-given, or otherwise derived right to have one's interests given equal weight in society. Health care is one of the things John Rawls called a "primary social good." Good health is a prerequisite to enjoy any kind of life a person might consider worthwhile. It doesn't matter what kind of politics or religion or interests you have, you need to be healthy (more or less) to do anything worthwhile. In this respect, health care is as fundamental as protection from physical violence and political liberty.
In a society which is ordered well enough to provide these primary social goods, each person's need of them must be given equal weight. This, simply, is justice. If a society, for example, is ordered well enough to support a police force, each person has a right to be protected by those police. If the police were to protect only some people but not others this would be an injustice and a violation of rights. In a nation with the structural and economic means to provide universal health care, the same situation applies.
Why, then, should you pay taxes to support the police or fire department or military or national health service? Simply because you benefit in innumerable ways from a well-ordered society which provides these primary social goods and as a result owe some portion of the proceeds to their maintenance.
Suppose that you're a farmer. This year you borrow a neighbor's plow and double your usual yield. Surely you owe your neighbor some of your excess. Your labor was necessary to gain these resources, but that labor was augmented by another and that means not all of these resources belong solely to you. The farmer who similarly benefits from a society which has provided roads, a stable currency, agricultural technology, productive varieties of seeds, and an environment conducive to commerce is not solely responsible for his prosperity. He owes something to that society.
Basically, not all you have is due only to your diligence and effort. You are more comfortable in material terms than your great-great-great-grandparents not because you work harder but because you benefit from the work of a whole society. We each owe something to the society which has given us so much. The right to universal health care is the claim each individual can make on the whole society as a generator of prosperity. Taxes are the duty each individual owes to society as the beneficiary of its myriad goods.
31. JB said the following at 5:05 PM on Jul 17:
Ted,
What's the difference between the obligation of a government to provide fire protection and its obligation to provide basic health care? Why is harm from flame more intrinsically deserving of government attention than harm from bacteria or viruses?
32. farmer Tom said the following at 5:08 PM on Jul 17:
Ted, this last comment was to correct Ian's mistaken notion about pragmatism.
The rest of the comment(last couple of lines) is directed at all those in favor of "free health care".
Edit at will, it's your blog.
BTW, pragmatism is a recurring theme in the "liberal Fascism" the "progressives" were always pushing the "pragmatic" third way, the middle ground, which was also part of the dialectic. Give them two choices, "Hegel's dialectic", both of which are socialist/communist choices. Trotsky's or Bolsheviks, both communists.
33. Lauren said the following at 5:29 PM on Jul 17:
Just out of curiosity, if you don't believe that in free health care because it is not a constitutional right, then what do you think about public schools? Education is not a constitutional right therefore should public schools not be free? I mean educational professionals need to earn a living, keep up with their facilities, and their supplies can often be expensive. Just a question.
34. jpritchard said the following at 5:44 PM on Jul 17:
As someone headed on a quick train right into the middle of this issue (i'm one year away from being a physician), i'm glad this has come to the surface.
In short, our healthcare system is a MESS in this country...and i don't think that is any secret. one of my mentors said it best: "healthcare is 3 simple things: immunizations, antibiotics, & access to clean water". Travel to ANY developing nation & THAT is the bulk of what "health" means to those citizens. I think we've lost that perspective in this country--just because we HAVE access to so much more doesn't mean we NEED to use it.
Furthermore, i am not opposed to a socialized healthcare system. As a future physician, I'd LIKE to see patients who CARE about their health--and in my opinion getting FREE coverage won't make citizens any more motivated to take an active stance in their care. Insurance companies already stand between the physician & the patient--having the government step in to occupy their place won't be anything shocking. HOWEVER...i think what the American public has FAILED to understand is that by giving EVERYONE access to healthcare (i personally think we should have to pay some fee based on income with a cap) we HAVE TO deny some *aspects* of care.
A previous commenter mentioned that other countries have adopted this plan--socializing the healthcare system so that all citizens have access. BUT what he/she failed to include was the fact that the government TELLS their citizens what treatments they can get, what images can be ordered, even what DOCTOR to see! In Cananda, for example, there is typically a 6+ month wait time for a knee replacement in someone the healthcare system deems "not ready" (in other words, their condition didn't necessitate immediate surgery). When the 6 month period passes, they are reassessed...& if by that point the joint structure is too far debilitated, the healthcare system will put a permantent "NO" on the knee replacement. That "FREE" access means that patient's care is dictated by the GOVERNMENT--not by the personal opinion of the physician OR the patient, regardless of pain level or disability. In Great Britian, ONLY drugs that have high percentages of results are approved. If you are diagnosed with a rare form of deadly cancer, you won't be able to recieve that medication with a 2% efficacy unless you pay the $15K per dose yourself.
We HAVE TO REALIZE that as a nation, we canNOT keep going in the direction we are going. People are making poor choices both personally & medically--visiting the ER when it isn't necessary, demanding expensive tests that aren't warrented...etc. etc. etc.
I think that before we put the flame under National Healthcare, we ALL need to take a look in the mirror & realign OUR OWN priorities. We need to really REALLY think about what we are willing to sacrifice, should a nationalized system come in the next couple of years.
And perhaps we need to take a step back & think about the last time you got something for free--how grateful were you? If you would have worked for it or paid even a portion of the total cost, would your gratitude have changed?
35. Sara said the following at 5:56 PM on Jul 17:
I am with Mrs. Spit on this one: I believe that there is a cultural influence on whether one considers health care a right or not. The UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights considers it one: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." Although I suppose that could be misconstrued depending on how you read it. The Canada Health Act is pretty clear with their five tenants which basically say that no matter who you are and where you live in Canada you do have a right to health care, assuming you are a resident of the country for over a certain period of time.
Thus, depending on where you are from, health care may be seen as a universal right. It also may not, which I have learned from reading these comments. At first I was shocked by seeing that some people don't consider it a right but now I realize I was just being ethnocentric. Just because my country of residence assumes it is a right, does not mean everyone does. I still do, but now I understand that I can't expect everyone to agree.
36. dcresident said the following at 6:13 PM on Jul 17:
Ted, what about the children of parents too poor to afford medical care for their children? Yes there are free clinics and government programs etc. out there for kids but I know there are plenty of families out there going bankrupt trying to give their kids a healthy life or even a chance at life. You demand that the government change the laws so that every child has a right to be born but then what? (I agree with this position btw) What about the kids born with life-threatening conditions that might stay with them their entire lives? They don't have the right to health care that will keep them alive without bankrupting their families? I think we should be more concerned about working towards a society where a child born to a poor family has the same opportunities to stay alive as the child born to a rich family.
37. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:18 PM on Jul 17:
Ted (#23): Actually, courts have held that the police are not under any obligation to protect you.
Jessica Gonzales found out the hard way.
38. Samantha said the following at 6:36 PM on Jul 17:
I love Canada's healthcare system! Nothing makes me more glad that I'm not American then knowing that my medical expenses have already been paid for. Yes, our taxes are higher, but since taxes are taken out directly one doesn't have to worry about paying for most medcial expenses. I know I still pay, but I also pay for those who can't pay for themselves. That's what I'd want someone to do if I was in the same situation.
39. Chris said the following at 7:32 PM on Jul 17:
Just a few comments as to why I as a physician am opposed to nationalized health care.
1) It is not an example of Christian compassion for the poor. As Christians we absolutely have a responsibility to care for the poor. However, that is between us and God. There is a huge difference between my providing my services for free by choice as a means of honoring God and the government's forcing me to provide my services for free (or for such low compensation that they may as well be for free). Our responsibility is a personal one--we are to provide our time and resources to care for the poor, not force other people to do so. I fear that most people who view universal health care as compassionate are the ones who won't have to give anything up/pay higher taxes. If you feel it is our God-given duty to care for the poor, then do so--from whatever talents, resources, and time that God has blessed you with. Encourage others to do the same, but don't ever think that you have a right to demand it.
2) Government-run healthcare is bad for patients: Right now we enjoy an incredible health care system (that is actually accessible to everyone--as evidenced by the homeless woman on my service who has been in the hospital for the last two months, and has received the exact same standard of care that everyone else receives). If the US follows the model of Canada and Europe, we will have the following: elderly patients with hip fractures sitting in bed for weeks prior to their operation, patients with curable diseases being sent home to die because they are past the age cut-off, and patients sitting on a waiting list for years waiting for a hernia operation that takes a half-hour.
3) The government is not a Christian entity. I think someone mentioned above that abortions will be covered by the national health care plan. The slippery slope here is that doctors will essentially become government employees and thus will give up certain rights. For example, I will never in my life prescribe the morning after pill or refer a patient to someone who will. While I am currently well within my rights, as a government employee (separation of church and state and all that) I could quite conceivably be viewed as a criminal. Taking this a step further, it also means that I could find myself in hot water should I ever offer to pray with a patient, mention God at all to a patient, or have a Bible in my clinic waiting room.
4) To reiterate point #2, I don't want the government dictating to me what I can do for a patient. I as a patient don't want the government dictating to my doctor what s/he can do for me. This to me is probably the strongest point--does anyone here really think that it's a good idea for the government to decide what treatment you can or can't have? No thanks.
40. Kerry said the following at 7:39 PM on Jul 17:
As a medical student, I have one question, if you have a right to life, don't you have right to health care? By that I mean we have many little babies I see in the hospital born at 22 weeks without insurance, and there are many ethical and moral questions to ask about how much service the state should provide when in the end their quality of life is pretty low and most don't make it. In many circumstances I think we should just allow them to die in a humane way as they used to do rather than patching them up but having a horrible quality of life. (I am talking about the MOST extreme circumstances that I have seen in the neonatal intensive care, not just any premies). Ultimately they are severely mentally challenged with multiple devastating lifelong medical conditions. Most conservative Christians who are against government health care would be up in arms if the liberal government decided not to save the lives of these babies because it cost to much.
Moreover most Christians rallied behind the right to life for people like Terry Shiavo. But what if the reason for removing her feeding tube was because she did not have the money for health care?
You can NOT say you have the right to life without saying you have the right to health care. I would really appreciate you thoughts on this issue Ted. Yes doctors must get paid (and I hope to get paid for my work in the future) but as a Christian if I think the government must protect the right to life they must provide that by providing health care.
41. Keith said the following at 9:12 PM on Jul 17:
I would like to respond to the arguments made by Mrs. Spit (#6) and Ted Slater (#20).
It is true that the father of Canada's medicare system (it was Tommy Douglas) was a passionate Christian minister who believed in a social gospel. One could fairly make the argument that universal medical care has some Biblical support.
However, it is only half true that universal medical care is a "right" in Canada. In the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada Case of Auton v. British Columbia (Attorney General), it was affirmed that "the legislative scheme does not promise that any Canadian will receive funding for all medically required treatment." In other words, The Canada Health Act only guarantees funding for "core services."
It should also be noted that since health care outside of the umbrella of "core services" is not guaranteed there is no reason why the Canadian government should be paying for abortions. It is disturbing that the Canadian government won't pay to treat autism in children (the key issue in the Auton case) but will pay to kill them.
42. dave said the following at 12:07 AM on Jul 18:
hey it was 90+ degrees here today and i was pretty miserable. i can't afford air conditioning, but i really think i have a right to it. is it really fair for some to have it because they got a better education and make more money? i don't think so. where do i apply to the government air conditioning system? this makes about as much sense to me as saying people have a right to healthcare. everyone desires it, everyone would be better off if they had it, everyone would be more comfortable if they had it. but a right to it? and worse yet, the government in charge of it? that's a laugh.
43. Jo said the following at 1:18 AM on Jul 18:
Darren 15, I found your comment pretty callous. But I suspect you're not the only one who thinks the way you do - although like some of the other non-Americans here, I do find that attitude incredible.
"So when someone says that we all have a "right to free healthcare" what they are saying is that it doesn't matter how sick you are, it does matter what your prognosis is, you deserve every chance and we the people, are going to pay for it, no matter what the cost."
Honestly, how can you have a problem with that? I can't argue with those who think there would be a better way of caring for people, but what you seem to essentially be saying is, "I don't mind if you die because it's not my problem that you were born with an illness." If I've misunderstood you, I'm sorry - but your presentation of the 'ethical dilemma' is in my opinion no dilemma at all.
For the record, if the situation were reversed and you were the one 'absorbing' lots of people's taxes, I would be absolutely fine with that.
In fact it's funny, but living in England I have never once heard anyone complain about paying taxes to our universal system. Many people moan about efficiency and so on, of course the system can always be approved, but people simply are happy to pay into it. Why? Because they know that while they may not be benefiting particularly right now, at any moment it could become them who are absorbing more of the costs. A lady who works in my local pharmacy commented on the price of one of my medications and I joked that I get more than my share when it comes to healthcare. She said back, "Haha, well you can have my share."
Personally, I think that attitude is far closer to the Christian ideal than a lot of people seem to be acknowledging, and I suspect that to make such a big deal out of the idea of universal healthcare when so many non-Christians in America seem to be all in favour of it, is probably not painting Christians in a good light.
44. kated said the following at 1:23 AM on Jul 18:
Do we really have a right to life? Do we really have a right to self defense? Do we really have a right to anything?
I'm thinking we don't. (Matthew 5, book of Job)
(btw I'm not American)
45. Callie said the following at 5:38 AM on Jul 18:
The other day I was listening to John Goodman answer a few questions about healthcare on the Dennis Prager Show (Thurs July 2, 09). For anyone who is not aware, Goodman is an economist currently serving as the president and CEO of the National Center for Policy Analysis with expertise in health care reform.
He brought up a few interesting points, one of which being that in cosmetic surgery, prices have been going down. Since most insurance doesn't cover cosmetic procedures, patients control the money so doctor's compete in price and quality. Its totally market/consumer driven. Also, over the last decade, there's been all sorts of technological changes that many assume increase costs of health care, but in cosmetics, its decreased costs.
I don't know how this translates into non-cosmetic health care, but it is an interesting point.
Goodman has a blog here:
www.john-goodman-blog.com
and his project on consumer driven health care is here:
healthcare.ncpa.org
46. farmer Tom said the following at 7:52 AM on Jul 18:
22. Joel said,
Also an excellent comment.
All government policy is based on the presupposition that "the power of government equals force". When the government demands/mandates/decrees that "this is law" intrinsic in that statement is the Romans 13 "bear the sword" which is directly related to the power of government. You fail to follow the demands of government, they have the power to imprison or kill you. Any government health plan will by necessity include the ability of that government to force you to comply, whether by the point of a sword or at the barrel of a gun.
Do not give that kind of power to the government. Take responsibility for you own health care. Leave the government out of the solution.
47. obewan said the following at 8:09 AM on Jul 18:
"But many, many think they're healthy enough and spend that $5,000/year on eating out and large screen TVs and nice cars and fast computers and nice homes. And when calamity hits, they've got their large screen TV ... and large medical bills."
-------------------------------------
I would not be quick to throw stones at large tv's or computers. They can both be had for a ONE-TIME payment of between $350 and $400 in our current economy. Health insurance for their family could cost upwards of $1000 MONTHLY and might be enough to drive their budget to bankruptcy.
Yes, choice of housing can be a major expense, but if in a good economy, their logic tells them they are building equity, and sometimes to house a family they have no choice in the matter like a single person would. And, just run the numbers for an $8 an hour factory job, which is what my last "skilled labor" position paid in Michigan (with no benefits) where enemployment currently runs 17.5% in some cities. I don't think you can prove the math works.
48. obewan said the following at 8:17 AM on Jul 18:
#12. Saidahwk said the following at 2:15 PM on Jul 17
"But why does Citizen A have to give Citizen B anything? Citizen B isn't doing any service for me. Health insurance as apart of your benefits or higher wages is something you get in return for a service. So why should Citizen A pay Citizen B anything?"
------------------------------------
Not doing any service? You must not like to eat. By your logic, the people at my local Super Wal-Mart that stock the shelves with my food and man the checkout registers for $6 an hour with no benefits are not doing any service for me? I think the huge discount I enjoy on my food is a big service, but I suppose I could always go to the Union store, or the co-op (like Costco where average wages are $17 an hour) if I have "moral heartburn" about it.
Your callous comment ignores that hard labor efforts of the working poor and implies that only "professional people" are making a meaningful contribution to our society.
49. Some Dude said the following at 9:38 AM on Jul 18:
Some people just need to learn a lesson that most of us learned in kindergarten: life is not fair.
As my favorite economist Walter Williams says (yes, I guess I'm a nerd), actions like these (taking money from one person to pay for another person's medical treatment) would be theft if they were done by private citizens. Why should it be any different if the citizens, instead, get their elected representatives to do it for them?
50. David R. said the following at 1:19 PM on Jul 18:
The debate over health is one which is impossible to cover completely in a blog setting, it is simply far to complex. I'm Canadian and as such have no vested interest in how the US decides to move on the issue of health care. That being said, I feel the need to defend the Canadian system, which has received it's fair share of abuse on these threads. I will address the issues first in terms of statistic and then in terms of anecdote.
Statistics:
Broadly speaking, in terms of health care metrics the Canadian health care system is statistically at least even if not better than the US system. From the source of all knowledge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared>link
No only does the US healthcare system result in poorer performance on health metrics, it does so with remarkable inneficiency. Study after study has shown that the US spends approximately twice as much on healthcare as other western countries and gets poorer results (http://www.frost.com/prod/servlet/market-insight-top.pag?docid=120510625>link1, http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=482678>link2). This is due at least in part to the fact that the multitude of healthcare providers in the US has led to significant administrative inefficiencies (http://www.pnhp.org/publications/nejmadmin.pdf>link3). It's somewhat ironic that the most efficient provider in the US is the VA, which is essentially a universal healthcare system for vets.
Anecdote:
I realize anecdotal is no substitute for data, however there has been some annecdotal slagging of Canada's health care system, so I feel compelled to balance that out a bit.
1) About ten years ago my aunt fell and broke her leg. They found that she had lung cancer which had spread to her bones, as well as to much of her body (she was only about fifty at the time, and had never smoked). She was given only a few months to live, and the doctors said that there was virtually no hope. Nonetheless numerous specialists consulted on the case, she was given expensive experimental treatments and she had in home care. They were not poor, but they certainly weren't wealthy either. My uncle might well have been faced with the prospect of going bankrupt paying for expensive treatment with little hope of success. Indeed my aunt did pass away after about six months, but she was treated with dignity. Decisions about her treatment were determined by her doctors and her family, not by an actuary. One could find many stories in the US where that is not the case.
2) A couple of years ago my sister had her second child. It was a difficult pregnancy, featuring a painful cyst, the irregular heartbeat of the baby and a four week premature delivery. For the irregular heartbeat she received an immediate access to a pediatric cardiologist (at the previously mentioned top-notch Toronto Sick Kids Hospital), post-birth monitoring and several follow-up visits. As the delivery was premature her baby was in the preemie ward for about a week. Not long before this her husband had been laid off from his job, and was going through teachers college. He got a new job, however my sister was curious and did some research regarding costs. She figured that had they been in the US and her husband been unemployed the birth could have cost them somewhere between $100k - $250k. Needless to say, here in Canada it cost them nothing. I realize that we all pay in the form of taxes, however I'm certainly willing to pay higher taxes so that my sister, my aunt (or someone elses sister or aunt) can get treatment, or perhaps one day I will need it.
3) A couple of years ago the prime minister of Canada suffered from an asthma attack. He did not get rushed to a private hospital, but was taking to the emergency room of the local hospital and was treated as any other person would be. With respect to health care, everyone in Canada is in the same boat. From the homeless guy to the prime minister, everyone uses the same system. As such, there is a vested interest in making the system better. It would seem to me that politicians in the US don't have a vested interest in the health care debate. Their health care is great, I'm sure.
4) This story is about the weaknesses of our health care system. A friend of mine had messed up his back in university. He was in a resonable amount of pain all the time. He was on a waiting list for an MRI, however it was going to take several months for his to get it. He ended up going down to the US to get the MRI. He was (and still is to some degree) bitter about the fact that he was left in pain waiting for this MRI. However, his condition was not a life-threating, and yes, people with greater need were given priority. There are trade-offs, and things can be done better, but by and large Canadians accept these trade-offs.
5) My cousin lives down in California with his wife and three kids. He's got a good job, and good health care, though he does complain that his costs have been continually rising in recent years. I was down visiting him recently and what I found interesting was how much time he spent talking about health care. His job is reasonably secure, however he was rather anxious about the situation, as if he lost his job he would be facing a huge monthly cost to maintain his health care coverage. And if he let his coverage lapse, even for a day, any pre-existing condition would no longer be covered under another policy. I was amazed at the amount of time he had spend researching the various options, and analyzing possible scenarios. He had worked out exactly how long he could last without a job before he would have to sell his house. We don't do that in Canada. There is a real peace of mind that comes from knowing that your health care is taken care of. It's interesting to note that medical costs are a huge cause of bankruptcies in the US (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6895896/>link). This leads to people not seeking care, especially preventive care, which ultimately makes things worse, both in a health sense and a larger economic sense.
This is a long post and I doubt I have changed any minds; it was not my intention. The US can do what it pleases, however I hope I have conveyed what it is Canadians like about our system. Canada's health care system is not perfect, however it is very good, it is improving, and we like it. However things change in the US, I hope you end up with a situation where you can say the same.
51. Jason said the following at 1:49 PM on Jul 18:
Just in time for this debate...Slate.com has a good article on health care for those who are interested:
http://www.slate.com/id/2223037/
From my perspective, one of the biggest problems with the way things are now is that I as a health-care consumer have no concept of price. I pay my co-pays and go on about my life. My doctor doesn't give me a list of medicines that might help whatever I'm going through and prices, he writes a script and I go pay my co-pay and (aside from whether it's a generic or not), I pay the same price When my wife has knee surgery (and this is a real-life example), they ask her what hospital campus she wants it done at (and the same surgery has had itemized expenses from $5000 to $15000 at different locations...but my co-pay is still only $100). After the surgery, they ask her where she wants to go for Physical Therapy (once again, I'm paying the same price regardless of where we go). I have no incentive to minimize costs.
I remember some politician (think it was Fred Thompson) described our current system as "combining the worst parts of capitalism and socialism". I'd like to see effective reform, because we're spending a higher percentage of GDP on health care, and by most measures are less healthy than people in other developed nations.
52. Kimberly Eddy said the following at 4:05 PM on Jul 18:
When someone in Canada or Europe needs some "real" health care, and they have the financial means, they come here to America, instead of going to their mickey mouse clinics. When someone in some parts of Europe (England and Austria that I know of, maybe more) get cancer, they often are told whether or not they are worthy of treatment to save their lives. What is more cost effective and all that....gotta keep costs down right? Well, there are some people that are just too expensive to keep alive.
Have you ever gone to a "free" clinic here in America? Visited a VA hospital? Experienced medicare/medicaid? If you have seen how well the Government runs those programs you wouldn't be so keen on having it universal. If you have ever lived in Europe or Canada, and had you or a loved one need some serious health care (such as for Cancer...not just regular checkups or needing some cold meds)...you'd not be so eager either.
I just lost my host mother in Austria, and a large factor in her death from cancer was the way the government health care handled it. Months to get in to see a doctor, then months to see a specialist, and by the time she was finally diagnosed, she had stage four liver cancer and died a week later. Just think, soon we may have the same "free" (read: low quality) health care here.
Also, as for Christian morality and universal health care...God forbids stealing but encourages generosity. To call it charity for the government to steal out of my wallet to give health care to everyone is stealing, plain and simple. I am a very generous person. Our family has helped others in the past when we were able to with various needs as the Lord laid it on our hearts, but I would resent paying for health care for people who are not caring for themselves, thus raising costs for everyone. This Robin Hood mentality (steal from the rich and give to the poor) is not of God. I believe we should be personally generous to others, but it is not generosity when it is being "generous" with other people's money.
And then there is the "other stuff" that our high health care costs pay for...now I hate the fact that I was on some meds for my shoulder injury that were $200 a bottle (ouch)...but I also know that there is a cost to the development of pharmaceuticals to treat our ills. All of the progress in medicine mostly happens here in America BECAUSE of our profit-oriented health care system. We wouldn't have cures for Cancer without it. We wouldn't have the same breakthroughs or at least not on the same time table, as we do now. Free enterprise encourages necessity as the mother of invention. We're all born sinners, and money definitely motivates the unregenerate heart like few things do when working towards cures.
There is a cost to having MRIs in most hospitals (in countries with universal health care, there is a wait to get an MRI because they are not so common). I am glad that when I hurt my shoulder last Dec. I was able to go in, and same day have x-rays, MRI, and schedule some super high tech arthroscopic surgery, and be healed within 3 months.
My insurance is awful...that's for sure...my out of pocket for my surgery was 45%, and I am thankful for what I had...but I am not so naive to believe that if we had universal health care, though I may not have paid as much, I'd probably still be writhing in pain waiting for an appointment with a specialist.
You really do get what you pay for.
53. Rachael said the following at 4:42 PM on Jul 18:
I am not very knowledgeable about healthcare, but I do know of a clinic (hopefully there is more than one of those around...) where people who don't have healthcare can go and pay $5 for their visit. The clinic is held in a church. I think that's a very cool thing.
On another note, a couple years ago I watched the movie Sicko (a Michael Moore one), which some may find interesting. I didn't research the facts and whether or not they were twisted, but, anyway...
Too bad healthcare has to be so astronomically expensive in the first place.
54. Tim (from Canada) said the following at 5:29 PM on Jul 18:
Hey, thought I could shed some light on a couple things that have been mentioned in partial detail.
#1 - Father of healthcare in Canada is Tommy Douglas
#2 - Canada's Healthcare is far from free for the average individual. We all pay taxes, and then the federal government doles out a portion of that to each province each year as their contribution to health care. The other portion is levied through provincial taxes. Then you do pay a hidden amount through what your company is not paying you by providing you with health benefits.
Even with government subsidized healthcare there are many services that are not covered by provincial health care acts, and coverage can vary depending on your province of residence or whether you are hospitalized or not.
In short the Canadian health care system covers medical care (preventative and curative) to all residents of Canada that is deemed medically necessary by a physician.
55. Mike said the following at 6:23 PM on Jul 18:
Julianne (#4) wrote:
So how do we reform a broken system where American citizens are currently unable to pursue rights to happiness, life and liberty because they are victims of a failing and profit oriented institution?
This is the heart of the Marxist (literally) thinking - that my freedoms are impinged if I don't have a result, provided by someone else, that I need.
But freedoms aren't about results; they're about opportunities. Let's say, for example, I am a basketball fanatic. I've wanted to play professional basketball my whole life. If I have the opportunity to play basketball against Michael Jordan, as a 5'9" fat guy with bad knees, my results are likely to be poor. Does this mean that, somehow, my right to the pursuit of happiness has been denied me? No, it does not. It means that, due to circumstances of birth, genetics, and God-ordained talent, I do not have what it takes to follow that particular dream.
No, this is not the same thing as health care - directly. But what about the person, such as a friend of mine, who is a diabetic, has bad knees, and wanted to be a professional baseball player? He pays through the nose for health care, because he's such a high risk. Which one is less "fair": To deny him his "right" to health care, or to forcibly take money from some number of other people and deny them their right to the pursuit of happiness?
You see, what people tend to forget in all of this is that there is no such thing as a one-person transaction. There is always a giver, and a receiver. One person is the source, the other is the destination. If you want to argue that you are somehow being deprived of your rights because you haven't been given some sort of result - like health care, a job, a house in the suburbs, or a chicken in every pot - then certainly it's worth asking what the person who gave you these things is having to give up in order for you to have them.
There's no such thing as the right to a result, for this reason: Because demanding that right necessarily impinges on the rights of the person from whom you're getting that result.
(Oh, and thanks for the attribution, Ted. I'm blushing.)
:-)
56. Mike said the following at 6:27 PM on Jul 18:
Ted Slater (#23) wrote:
Isn't providing protection and justice among the primary purposes of government?
Yes...sort of. Police protection is of the general sort, not to any particular individual. In other words, by arresting criminals, performing investigations, and providing a general deterrent, police provide protection for society as a whole. They do not, however, provide protection for any given individual.
There are multiple legal precedents stating rather unequivocally that no individual citizen is entitled to any service from government, including police protection. So, if you call 911 and the police don't respond in time, you cannot sue them for negligence. If you call the fire department and your house burns down anyway, they are not culpable.
Keep this in mind when discussing government's "duty" to provide services, or such notions as the "social compact".
57. adam said the following at 6:58 PM on Jul 18:
I'm sure there is something to be said about someone who only wants to talk about what rights he can demand, instead of wanting to talk about what responsibilities he must fulfill.
The question isn't whether Americans can demand health care as a right, but whether a "Christian" society can refuse health care to those in need. And to that second question, the answer must be an emphatic no.
But for all your 'right to life' and 'dignity of life' and 'consistent ethic of life' posturing, you've created a society where the middle class struggle against corporate insurance giants and the lower classes just suffer and die. Jesus won't judge us on how great our most expensive hospitals are (as some posters have proudly done) but rather he'll judge us how we treated the least of our brethren.
You see the free market fails in health care. One of the essential elements for a free market system to be 'free' is that if you don't like the product or service, you can go somewhere else. Then health insurance providers who lose customers will go out of business and more competitive insurance providers will prosper by offering better insurance.
The problem is that it doesn't work that way.
If you don't like your insurance service, it's because you have a medical condition. If you have a medical condition you can't go to another company. They'll refuse you coverage. So the free market premise breaks down. Insurance companies, once you get sick, will do their absolute best to offer you terrible service and drop your coverage entirely to keep costs down because their responsibility is to their shareholders, not to you.
Here in Canada we've removed profit from the equation. There are no shareholders. The people who 'hold the policies' are the same people holding the executives to account. In this way the end user regulates the body controlling the system. In your society, the end user has no say in how the system is run.
Meanwhile, we spend about half per-captia on health care as you do, and we've managed to insure every single citizen. How? Nobody makes profits. There are no billionaire hospital tycoons. No dividends get paid out to shareholders. The money put into the system stays in the system. And Americans come up here by the busload to buy pharmaceuticals.
Not only that, but this system keeps us prosperous. Toyota recently built an auto plant in Woodstock Ontario because removing the obligation to buy health insurance keeps labour costs down. We beat every US state that was bidding for the contract. We're building auto plants while yours are shutting down.
Americans right now are seeing how years of greed and consumerism and wars have driven their society bankrupt. You won't trust your government to run your healthcare in YOUR interest, but you'll trust AIG to run it in their shareholders interest? Boy, they've got you snowed.
As for the idea that a health system would bankrupt America (and yes I know about warrants in California and the rest of your financial situation), it is a fallacy. You're suffering from 'last cost effect.' I'll give you an example. Suppose you bought a $300 000 Ferrari and then paid church tithes of $3000. Then you went bankrupt because you were broke. Which cost would you blame the bankruptcy on? You could blame it on the 'last cost' but I'd rather blame it on the Ferrari, which you didn't need. Right now you have hundreds of thousands of soldiers and mercenaries and contractors pouring money into the deserts of Iraq for no good reason. And you say you can't afford health care. For the price of the War in Iraq, you could have built and staffed hundreds of new, state of the art hospitals. But instead, you believe in Big Government which fights wars for the oil companies. So you think that healthcare will bankrupt you but you'll keep on hiring soldiers to throw money away. Your wars are your Ferraris and health care is like your church tithe. You probably can't have both, so which one do you really need?
Let the oil companies hire their own mercenaries instead of having it all subsidized by big government, and let your tax dollars do something that actually benefits the American people and is in line with your values.
58. Reg Schofield said the following at 7:56 PM on Jul 19:
As a Canadian and having had my wife go through Cancer treatment and surgery , I was thankful for our system. It is not perfect, nor is it without major flaws but it is not as bad as many Americans have made it out to be. But more importantly Christians need to think beyond a constitution or even any healthcare system. We are called to reach out , help out and give. Way too many Christians seem to forget we are our brothers keeper. By not helping our fellow man if we see a need , even if its a health care issue or cost goes against what James says about seeing a need and not doing anything.
Yes we are not to covet but for those who have been blessed with riches , its not for selfish gains for it is the Lords hand that blesses .
59. Steve said the following at 9:21 PM on Jul 19:
Perhaps the most often quoted and thereby misleading statistic by the advocates of big government is the sheer number of people in America who currently have no insurance. The numbers have been used and misused by politicians in both major political parties.
Unfortunately these fallacies have also seeped into much of the Christian community who believe that being "compassionate" means using government force and strong arm tactics to distribute wealth from one group to another. The biggest claim is of the millions who are uninsured, the number mostly used at "47 million"
While the number of Americans without insurance is 47 million at first glance, more than nine million are not American citizens. Taking this into account, the number drops to approximately 38 million. Of those now remaining, an additional nine million people make over $75,000 a year, nearly double the median household income in the United States.
If they desire it these individuals should be able to afford basic health insurance. Adjusting for this factor, the number slides to approximately 29 million.
With an additional eight million Americans making between $50,000 and $75,000 a year, still more than the average American, these individuals should be able to afford basic health insurance if they choose to purchase it. This drops the number even further to just over 20 million people.
And yet the "new" number of 20 million uninsured Americans may even be too high.
The number of true "uninsured" Americans could perhaps be lowered again with the estimation that almost half of those uninsured will have insurance within four months. Many individuals not covered due to transitional periods between jobs will receive insurance through their employer and would be covered upon taking the new position. It is estimated that 45% of those without insurance will have it within four months.
So where do the exact numbers stand? There is no way to be certain, although some estimates put the number as low as eight million people; a significant difference from the "47 million" the proponents of big government would have you believe.
Also to go off topic, it was mentioned we don't have a "right" to police protection...
That is actually correct, the Supreme Court case Castle Rock v. Gonzalez actually states an individual does NOT have a Constitutional right to police protection.
As believers we would be wise to consider that the next time we make such a fuss over all these "rights" that we supposedly have and are not found in the Constitution; most specifically health insurance.
60. Raych said the following at 6:19 AM on Jul 20:
This is a wonderfully uncomplicated issue for me.
Since I believe that every human being has the "right to life" (including the unborn) it must necessarily follow that every human being has the right to access healthcare services regardless of their ability to pay for them.
Why? Because, without such a right, people die.
Countries which provide universal healthcare also have higher rates of life expectancy and lower rates of infant mortality. It doesn't take a PhD in Statistics to figure out why.
61. Sarah P. said the following at 8:07 AM on Jul 20:
Craig (#17) said: I wholeheartedly agree that no one has a "right" to free health care. However, along those same lines, no one has a "right" to police protection, fire protection, access to the courts, streets, or any number of things. The reality is that any of these so-called rights derive from a social compact - whereby people group together and agree upon these principles and that they should be provided for the public good.
Government protects people from other people stepping in and harming or killing them. Thus: police and the court system. It restrains people from imposing negatives on others. This is fairly commonsense and black & white.
The question of where to enable positives, however, is a question of wisdom. Roads and interstate commerce make sense, since you want people to have the freedom to travel anywhere in the country. Otherwise, since power naturally tends to accrue to a single center in a dangerous way, it makes sense to diffuse it across the country by law, in order to slow or block the process of centralization (power in the hands of too few).
If the fed restrained itself to roads and health care insurance, it might not be so troublesome. But the health care question is just one of many. Does the federal government pragmatically need to have that power? Debatable, although I look at the history of centralization and assert that the result would be worse than the current system. And morally, I would argue to keep anything out of central government that it doesn't need to have.
62. obewan said the following at 8:44 AM on Jul 20:
#42. dave said the following at 12:07 AM on Jul 18
hey it was 90+ degrees here today and i was pretty miserable. i can't afford air conditioning, but i really think i have a right to it. is it really fair for some to have it because they got a better education and make more money? i don't think so. where do i apply to the government air conditioning system? this makes about as much sense to me as saying people have a right to healthcare.
---------------------------------
That is a straw man example if I ever heard one. Your false canard is not going to fly. Lack of AC will never result in your death or personal bankruptcy from services rendered to save your life. Surely you can see that healthcare is about way more than comfort.
63. Ian said the following at 9:01 AM on Jul 20:
In comment #28 Farmer Tom asserted that my observation that "the bunk of conservative arguments...are pragmatic" was mistaken. He then presented a moral argument, rather than a pragmatic argument.
Kudos, Farmer Tom.
One argument, however, does not constitute "the bulk"--although I do appreciate your articulation of your presuppositions and motivation. Moreover, you didn't answer my question.
If you'll permit a hypothetical, suppose that we lived in a completely homogeneous society in which we all shared the same faith and legislated from our fideistic beliefs. Imagine that we all had already decided to pool our money and redistribute it. At what point would pragmatic concerns overrule our charitable efforts?
That said, I disagree with your claims. Particularly the one stating,
"You are a thief and covetous."
I do not believe that socialism is "...a direct violation of God's Law," or that I must "[a]mit [my]sinful heart attitude and repent."
Remember that all ideology, philosophy and theology is man-made. All are subject to error and vice. If God has given a shining endorsement of your personal views, I'm all ears (I expect you'll cite scripture to support your opinion, but men of many, varying inclinations have done the same over the course history--many more will do so in the future. You'll be interpreting the text to suit your end and I won't find it compelling).
Finally: You possess the tact of a brick. I can't fathom how you'd expect something like this to play out, but you are not helping.
64. j said the following at 9:10 AM on Jul 20:
In an ideal world, the government should not have to pay for health care as the church should be the one providing for the "least of these" who cannot even afford the basics. In fact, this used to be the traditional role of the church. During the Roman period, one of the biggest witnesses for Christ was the fact that the Christians were taking better care of the pagan poor than the pagans were themselves (I think it was Julian the Apostate who mentioned this). During the Medieval period it was the role of monasteries to take care of the sick in the villages and cities. The reason I think that the government should be taking care of the sick today is because the church seems to be either incapable or unwilling. At which point does this lead to murder? If as a Christian you are unwilling to help pay for someone who has an illness that can be treated, and this person dies, doesn't this make you culpable?
65. j said the following at 9:10 AM on Jul 20:
"imagine how boring it'd be if everyone simply posted, "Yes, thanks Ted.""
What is scary is that this issue has so many proponents for the theft. Yes, forcing taxpayer dollars IS theft.
A long time ago, in the founding of this country, a boatload of immigrants showed up. It was denied, as no right was found in the constitution to take taxpayer dollars to fund support for this group.
We have certainly come a long way since then, both with the laws on the books that are in contradiction to the constitution of the US, and in the concepts of the govt role among the US citizens.
As far as the other countries are concerned, I don't give a flip what THEY think about Health Care. The US Gov isn't based on the belief system of Canada, England, etc.
66. obewan said the following at 10:06 AM on Jul 20:
What is scary is that this issue has so many proponents for the theft. Yes, forcing taxpayer dollars IS theft.
----------------------------------
And would you call it theft if you were the one facing death and/or bankruptcy? How can it be "theft" if all people have the same rights. I don't call my mandatory car insurance "theft". I call it what it is - MANDATORY INSURANCE.
67. RLynn said the following at 10:18 AM on Jul 20:
I'm a pediatric nurse with a public health degree and have worked in pediatric cancer, public health, general pediatrics, emergency medicine, HIV/AIDS for more than 20 years and been a short term missionary overseas--the US healthcare system is BROKEN. Dr. C. Everett Koop (who I credit with my decision to get a public health degree as a Christian) said that there are 3 variables about a health care system and you can only have 2 out of the 3: quality care, affordable, accessible to everyone. Right now, the best quality care is only accessible to those whose place of employment have negotiated the deal or to folks who are very poor--working people in the middle, small business owners or those who work for small businesses, those who are self-employed in other words, people who work for a living can't afford care. And those who do have insurance and having been paying in for years get "dropped" once they are diagnosed with a condition that the insurance companies say are pre-existing conditions. I think ACCESS to health care should be guaranteed--help make it affordable to those who can't afford it. Believe me, we are going to pay now or pay later.
68. Ted Slater said the following at 10:24 AM on Jul 20:
Here's the thing: I believe I am most qualified to make decisions on how to help people with the money I earn. To call me "unChristian" (as some non-published comments implied) because I want to help people through a Christian ministry rather than through non-Christian "government," is boggling.
Let's say I have $5,000 per year that I'm able to donate to various organizations/ministries/non-profits. Let's say I currently give $4,000 to my local church, $500 to Focus on the Family, and $500 to Compassion.
Now let's say that "government" imposes more tax on my income to pay for their programs. Say that my tax burden increases $3,000. Now I only have $2,000 per year that I am personally able to donate to various ministries of my choosing.
I suppose I am doing my "Christian duty" to pay for my neighbors' health insurance, but I'm also now unable to contribute as much to my church, to Focus on the Family, or to Compassion. Because people will be unable to donate as much to ministries because of increased taxes, those ministries will suffer.
So, more people will have health insurance, provided by me through (by definition) a non-Christian entity. And less people will receive ministry (e.g., the child I am sponsoring in India through Compassion).
Great. More non-Christian "ministry" and less Christian ministry: That's what this budget-busting program will achieve.
69. Mrs. Spit said the following at 11:40 AM on Jul 20:
Hi Ted:
Sorry, I missed this - busy on the weekend.
I'm not sure why on earth you would raise the issue of Mr. Castonguay in respect of public health care in Canada. I'll assume that you are perhaps quite unfamiliar with Canada's political and historic realities. I know from my time spent in the US, Canada can be a bit of a dark hole to the US (Prime Minister Poutine, anyone?)
Mr. Castonguay was a member of the Province of Quebec's National Assembly. He has never been active in the Federal political system. He introduced universal healthcare, the same system that the rest of Canada already had, to Quebec.
To explain this, I have to provide a bit of a history lesson about Canada. Quebec operates in Canada's Confederation quite differently than the 9 other provinces. They have a different legal system, provide many of their own federal programs, provincially (The Federal Gov't gives them the money, they provide their own services). In other words, just because Quebec is doing something, doesn't mean the rest of Canada is. (and if you want to see a Canadian froth at the mouth, ask them about Quebec as a distinct society)
Tommy Douglas was a provincial politician, who then became a Federal politician. Since Canada's Health Act is federal legislation, well, I think you get the point.
As for Mr. Castonguay's comments, I think it is important to note that his commission was quite clear that it did not feel that the public healthcare system in Quebec should be disbanded, only that to the extent that wait times were unacceptable, under the established wait times rules, private facilities could and possibly should be used to reduce wait times (the standards manage things like waits for hip replacements). Additionally, while he did advocate paying for some services, he also argued that the provincial sales tax should be raised to pay for healthcare. Perhaps most importantly, the government rejected his recommendations, out of hand. (which was as well, because the Canada Health Act would most likely have prevented them anyway).
In the end, Quebec was able to use the abilities of the public system to reduce wait times.
As for your remarks about Tommy Douglas' person, my point was that he was not just a Baptist, but a minister as well, and he would have and did argue he was doing Gods work. You have one opinion, he had another, and both are valid.
For courtesy's sake, I attempt not to insult or degrade your politicians and national icons. I suggest you do the same with ours.
70. farmer Tom said the following at 11:49 AM on Jul 20:
So a summary of the socialist/leftist "health care is a right" crowd can be encompassed in this phrase, "They might die!"
Well, I got news for you boys and girls, You are all gonna die.
"The wages of sin is death"
"There is none righteous"
"It is appointed unto men once to die,"
There are two guarantees in life, "death and taxes," and you people are trying to beat one with the other.
You're still gonna die.
No health care program can save your eternal soul, you will die, so start worrying more about sharing the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ with people who are going to die, and less time about stealing someone else's money to save their temporal existence.
71. Louise from Chicago said the following at 12:00 PM on Jul 20:
Comment 70, okay, sir, let's say someone in your family is diagnosed with cancer.
Would you just say to him/her "Well, Charlie, you're going to die some day, so just refuse all treatment and prepare to meet your maker, now!"
I think not actually.
72. farmer Tom said the following at 12:09 PM on Jul 20:
Kudos, Farmer Tom.
One argument, however, does not constitute "the bulk"--although I do appreciate your articulation of your presuppositions and motivation. Moreover, you didn't answer my question.
I understand exactly six words in that entire incoherent construct.
I most certainly did answer your question. Pragmatism is a political philosophy of the radical left. They accept the third way "middle ground" to advance their leftist agenda.
I reject pragmatism and the third way.
Theft is always wrong, period. You are not entitled to the fruits of another man's labors, period.
All your hypothetical and rambling incoherence aside, you are a thief, advocating taking by the force of government the wages of another mans labor.
I yes I threw a brick, sometimes it's necessary to break a few windows on the glass houses of the intellectually vapid.
I would guess that there is a fairly high probability that at some point, those who are paying the bills are going to start shooting the thieves, (civil war). That's probably how this will end.
That's not a pretty picture, and it certainly will result in much sorrow and death, but the wages of sin(theft) is death.
73. obewan said the following at 12:12 PM on Jul 20:
No health care program can save your eternal soul, you will die, (Farmer Tom)
---------------------------------
Come on, be nice and don't twist our comments out of context. You know full well there is a huge difference between preventable death at age 40 with a wife and kids to provide for, and death at a ripe old age of 85. I never said healthcare can prevent natural deaths from occuring.
74. Jo said the following at 12:31 PM on Jul 20:
Kimberley #52:
"When someone in Canada or Europe needs some "real" health care, and they have the financial means, they come here to America, instead of going to their mickey mouse clinics."
That's insulting and not true. As I've mentioned about 5795332802 times already, I have a lifelong, life-limiting illness that requires 'real health care' on a regular basis. My local 'mickey mouse' clinic see me the same day whenever I need an appointment, and my specialist 'mickey mouse' clinic (which by the way is Europe's largest and leading centre for my illness) see me every three months and admit me within a week if I need inpatient treatment, usually to a private room.
My Mum has no illness, but recently had to have two separate operations which weren't serious and so involved a wait. But both happened within 2-3 months.
Your claims may be true in a minority of cases, and I'm certainly not suggesting that the UK system is perfect. But it is very very far from the picture you paint of it. There are advantages to private health care of course, and of course people will always moan about the sacrifices you make for a 'free' service - but the truth is that for most people, most of the time, our system is more than adequate.
75. Jason said the following at 1:05 PM on Jul 20:
#62 (obewan): Actually, people die every summer in older buildings in the North that aren't Air Conditioned.
http://www.epa.gov/aging/resources/climatechange/extremeheatevents.htm
It does seem a little odd to me that the government helps with heating bills in the Northeast, but doesn't seem to do the same with AC. Maybe that's just the more liberal tendencies of the states in that region...
76. Carolyn said the following at 1:11 PM on Jul 20:
Ted (#20),
A simple google search of "Father of Medicare Canada" gives Tommy Douglas as the top result easily, and Emmett Hall as a distant second. How your "bit of research" turned up Claude Castonguay is a bit of a mystery to me, and leads me to wonder what sorts of resources you've been turning to, for both facts on Canadian history and on US Medical Health Care reform.
77. Mrs. Spit said the following at 1:14 PM on Jul 20:
Kimberly, #52 -
There is significant, very significant danger in taking anecdotal stories and making them into fact.
My mother has cancer. She's also had 7 strokes and a heart attack. At no point has a doctor ever told her to go to the US. Ever. She has been provided excellent care, at no cost to her.
I have heard of people going to other countries to pursue experimental treatment. I've heard of American's going to other countries, to pursue gene therapy. Insurance companies in the US don't cover it, because among other reasons, there's no science behind it.
I am terribly sorry about your mother's death. I can understand that would break your heart. I feel your anger.
But what you are asserting about Canada simply isn't true.
78. Ted Slater said the following at 1:17 PM on Jul 20:
Louise from Chicago (#71) -- I had cancer. I had surgery and years of CT scans, blood tests and chest X-rays.
Not sure what point you're making, Louise.
79. P&P said the following at 1:18 PM on Jul 20:
I once heard an economist (sorry, I can't find the source in my notes or online) talk about healthcare costs and the idea of bargaining for the best care.
To paraphrase: "You don't think about the cost when your child is unconcious in the emergency room."
Yes Farmer Tom we are all going to die, but I would rather have it because it was time for me to go, not because I couldn't afford to have an appendectomy.
It's easy to judge when you've been lucky (blessed?) with good health or good access to insurance, but when you're on the other side; e.g. unemployed and unable to afford COBRA, diagnosed with a chronic condition for which insurance companies won't cover the care, or just be in the wrong place when a car jumps the curb and you spend three months in rehab, do you see the necessity of good affordable care for all.
80. Ian said the following at 1:20 PM on Jul 20:
#70, Farmer Tom:
"The socialist/leftist 'health care is a right' crowd" is well aware of death's inevitability--and they don't necessarily have hope in the resurrection. It makes sense for quality of life to mean more, in such a context, rather than less.
By your lights, no one should care for physical health before "spiritual health." What if the former affects the latter? I'm sure an argument could be made for poor health making everything more difficult.
Also, I like to think that God cares for our physical well-being in some way. Christ is our intermediary, interceding on our behalf, and He both understood human pains and also sympathized with those in pain. In particular, I'm thinking of Jesus' weeping with Mary and Martha; he knew Lazarus would rise but He mourned with them, sympathizing with their suffering. I have to admit, I find parts of Liberation Theology incredibly appealing.
One sentiment I've seen multiple times in this thread is that it is not government's proper role to effect a health care policy, that goverment should be more limited in general. The arguments for larger or smaller government have existed as long as our country has. I think this is part of a natural tension that has always existed in our particular iteration of Republic Democracy.
81. Chris said the following at 1:24 PM on Jul 20:
Raych #60: I'm afraid it's a bit more complicated than you are thinking--and a statistics degree (which I often wish I had) would actually help a lot. One thing you need to understand is that countries report mortality differently--the US reports mortality as the death of any infant with a sign of life at birth--so for example, a 22 week old baby that dies 4 hours after being born is reported as a death. Virtually every other country that I am aware of would not include that in their statistics--to them, the infant was dead at birth, and no attempt to keep them alive would have been made. Some countries even base whether or not an infant is born alive on its size--Switzerland for example only considers an infant born alive if it is longer than 12". Some countries don't count births as live unless the infant lives for longer than 24 hours. So essentially the US will have a high mortality rate compared to European countries because they consider many infants born dead who we count as being born live. Regarding life expectancy, you have to realize that apart from reporting differences there are so many factors that play into it, such as genetics, culture, diets, lifestyle, etc, you really can't just attribute it to socialized healthcare.
Regarding your first statement, it really doesn't follow at all. A true right cannot encroach on another's right. When I say a person has a right to life, I mean that s/he has the right not to be murdered in the womb, or when s/he grows old, or any other time. Your argument that a person has a right to healthcare means that they have a right that I as a physician must provide them free healthcare (making me a slave) or that I as a taxpayer must pay a physician/nurse/tech/hospital/clerk/etc to care for them. If someone has the right to make me a slave or steal my earnings, then you are taking my rights. It doesn't make sense.
Obewan #66: Would I consider it theft if I were the one dying? Yes! The last I checked forcibly taking money from someone was theft--it doesn't make a difference if I'm the one benefitting or not. And under Obama's plan we won't all have the same rights. One group of people will have the right to (substandard) care for free, the other group will have their earnings stolen from them and then get care that is substandard to what they have previously received. And even if they did have the same rights, why should you have the power to force it on them?
RLynn #67: Appreciate your point of view, particularly the quote of C. Everett Koop's. Out of curiosity, how low would you be willing to decrease the quality of care in order to make it accessible/affordable to all?
82. Ted Slater said the following at 1:33 PM on Jul 20:
Carolyn (#76) -- it's nothing sinister. I simply googled "father of canadian health care" and up came those two names within the first two search results.
In fact, Claude Castonguay is referenced in most of the webpages linked to on that first page of search results.
83. David R. said the following at 1:36 PM on Jul 20:
I find it interesting when people get angry about the idea that the government might 'steal' their money to implement health care reforms. The government certainly does 'steal' money, for all sort of reasons. As has been mentioned before the government takes money to pay for things like police and the justice system. That is because society has deemed those as fundamental institutions of society. We would find it unacceptable if the police would only come to your house if you personally paid them, or if you could only access the justice system if you had 'justice insurance'. In Canada and other places we deem health care as another fundamental institution of society. Not to state the obvious, but the US doesn't.
People seem keen to focus on the potential extra costs of any new health care legislation, however what you may fail to realize is that the US already spends ~17% of GDP on health care (link), or twice as much as we pay in Canada per capita. If you were getting a outstanding health care for that, fine, but you're not. You have tens of millions of people with no health care, you have hundreds of thousands of personal bankruptcies a year due to health care expenses (link, interesting to note that most of those people actually had a health care policy, just apparently not a very good one...) and poorer performance on almost all health metrics. I'm all in favor of capitalism, but I'm more in favor of pragmatism. By all the available data, universal health care is a far more efficient vehicle for delivering health care than the free market.
The problem is that healthcare doesn't translate nicely to the free market. You simply can't say, "Ahh, I'm a little tight this month, I'm going to not get sick right now." "I'm not going to have a heart attack right now, I'm going to wait until the treatment goes on sale." "I know I've just been in an accident, but don't go to this hospital here, it's too expensive, go to the one across town." If your wife or child had cancer and the doctor came to you asking, "Would you like the Lada cancer treatment or will you spring for the Lexus cancer treatment," what do you do? Thinking intuitively (or looking at the number of bankruptcies in the US due to health care) it is quite clear that people will bankrupt themselves in order to care for those they love. Personally, I'm healthy and have never had any major health issues, but several people in my family have, and other I know have. So I pay my taxes and am grateful that we have the system that we do.
84. Kellie said the following at 1:37 PM on Jul 20:
I do think every person has the right to affordable (not free) healthcare, that would be part of a right to life. I have serious doubts that healthcare in the United States can be fixed, because we have politicians who know little about healthcare trying to do all the fixing. We need a better model for all Americans focusing on preventative care, and lower cost for people to see a doctor in an office rather than an emergency room. And the realization that no matter how good a system is, some people are still going to get very sick and require expensive treatment.
85. Ted Slater said the following at 1:43 PM on Jul 20:
I need to repeat what Chris (#81) wrote, since the issue of infant mortality has shown up in some of the comments:
This idea that infant mortality rates in the US are high because of poor medical care is just false. Rates are high because we consider every baby born dead to have been at one time ... a living baby.
86. Texas Craig said the following at 2:00 PM on Jul 20:
Ted (#68):
As long as our tax laws allow deductions for charitable giving, any decision by the federal government to provide for certain things will not necessarily dramatically affect you. Charitable donations are deducted from your income before determining your tax burden. However, your ability to buy cool new technology for yourself from your after-tax income will be impacted by any increase in tax rates.
87. Ted Slater said the following at 2:09 PM on Jul 20:
Texas Craig (#86) -- if my taxes go up $3,000 per year, then I'll have $3,000 less "disposable income" to give to Christian ministries.
88. Mrs. Spit said the following at 2:14 PM on Jul 20:
Oh dear, one more comment about infant mortality, that a few people have alluded to.
Major American hospitals often try to save babies born between 20-24 weeks gestation.
I won't lie. This is a struggle. When you look at the NICHD statistics, these children have between a 90-96 percent mortality rate. The very tragic thing is that we have just moved the date of death back a bit. 20 years ago, they would have died within hours of birth, and now they die in a few weeks. The rates aren't better, it just takes longer.
And I'm not sure what is better. It's a problem of statistics, in that I suspect that everyone believes that their child will be in the 6-10% that live, even when basic math shows us this isn't the case.
In contrast, the Royal Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Canada have established resuscitation guidelines for preemies, and we provide compassionate care to those children, but do not attempt to prolong life. Between 24-28 weeks, the decision is made by neonatology and the family.
This does affect the way the perinatal death/infant mortality stats are collected. A child that dies right at birth or has an APGAR of 3 or lower may be recorded as a perinatal death or a still birth, and not a birth.
89. Ian said the following at 2:23 PM on Jul 20:
#72, Farmer Tom: You wrote,
"I most certainly did answer your question. Pragmatism is a political philosophy of the radical left. They accept the third way "middle ground" to advance their leftist agenda.
I reject pragmatism and the third way"
For clarification's sake, I was referring to pragmatism in a broader sense rather than that specific, political application (e.g. the "third way"). Pragmatism is alive and well in America, today, both on Capitol Hill and in Universities. I believe it has affected American thought quite deeply and that it is used and often assumed by both major political parties and most Americans, in general. It has already become ingrained in a basic, non-technical sense. For the record, I do not identify myself with pragmatic philosophy, although I try to understand its influence on society.
So when I spoke of a "pragmatic argument," I meant an argument that takes issue with a claim because of the claim's practical effects, e.g. that the claim was not actually feasible or would incur more costs than it projected, etc. A "moral argument," then, would take issue with a claim on moral grounds, e.g. that X action is wrong or aberrant because of Y obligation or standard, etc.
Finally, in response to your mention of civil war, you've clearly gone beyond rational discourse. I have nothing more to say to you.
90. Sarah P. said the following at 2:37 PM on Jul 20:
Chris (#81) said: Your argument that a person has a right to healthcare means that they have a right that I as a physician must provide them free healthcare (making me a slave) or that I as a taxpayer must pay a physician/nurse/tech/hospital/clerk/etc to care for them. If someone has the right to make me a slave or steal my earnings, then you are taking my rights. It doesn't make sense.
It especially doesn't make sense because the people arguing this tend to reverse the argument when it comes to abortion... a woman shouldn't be "forced" to allow the "parasite" to encroach on her rights to live a life as free from sexual responsibility as a man.
Farmer Tom, I have to say that I might want to agree with you, except the manner you are presenting your argument could be hurtful to others. Just a heads-up, my brother in Christ.
91. Ted Slater said the following at 2:40 PM on Jul 20:
Mrs. Spit (#88), you wrote that babies born between 20-24 weeks gestation have between a 90-96 percent mortality rate.
I've done a bit of googling, and that number range is not very helpful. Seems that those born before 22 weeks hardly ever survive, but those born at 24 weeks have a 60% survival rate. Even those born at 23 weeks do better than what you said.
If a hospital wants to try to save a baby in her 24th week of gestation, it's likely that child will survive. Are you saying that in Canada, the hospital won't even try to save that baby's life?
92. Zusanne said the following at 2:56 PM on Jul 20:
Just a few comments . . .
First:
Thank you, Ted
Second:
No, the US system of health care isn't perfect. But look at the strides that have been taken in the free market recently: clinics in drug stores with posted prices (for both preventative care as well as for basic routine procedures; mall clinics, where, for, again, a posted fee, a patient (who has signed a statement promising not to sue the doctor) can receive services from a doctor, etc. In Florida, for $20.00/month, parents can sign up for KidCare (they don't check the parents' legal status), providing generous health services. The solutions are coming.
Third:
Hawaii had attempted to provide health care for uninsured children; it was forced to drop the program after just a few months. Why should a parent pay higher insurance costs each month when the state will provide it for "free"?
Fourth:
We live in a society in which we are allowed to make choices. The 45 million uninsured number, as has been already noted several times, is not all people who are unable to provide for themselves (that number is closer to 10 million--still too high--but only a small fraction of those would be "helped" by the system being considered in our Congress right now). The vast majority of them are making other choices with their lives, time and income. Those choices come with, often unfortunate, consequences.
Fifth:
Please don't confuse a system which the GOVERNMENT through involuntary contributions from wage earners to care for those less fortunate with Biblical compassion. Compassion demands that we as believers help those who need help, not pat ourselves on the back because, after all, it's been done for us by a governmental agency. Compassion is getting our hands and hearts involved to help find solutions for those who desire our assistance.
93. Mrs. Spit said the following at 2:58 PM on Jul 20:
Ted:
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/about/org/cdbpm/pp/prog_epbo/epbo_case.cfm
Not nearly as clear as I could have been, sorry.
You are right, I was looking at 20 week stats, not 24 weeks. AT 24 weeks 0 days, they do everything within their power to save these kids. At 23 weeks, no they don't. So in the case above, yes they would try.
Interesting also that you use a female baby, they seem to do a bit better, statistically.
Also, remember, many of those stats are based on a baby that isn't already comprimised - a baby that arrived by something like an incompetent cervix. If the baby is delivered as a result of a heart condition (Downs), pre-eclampsia, Intra-Uterine-Growth Restriction or the like, the stats get worse, because mum and baby are sicker.
Even more important is where you have this baby. A major hospital in New York, you are fine. Small town USA with no Level 3 NICU, not so fine.
94. BDB said the following at 3:05 PM on Jul 20:
I'm really glad to see that a debate about the proper shape of health care is taking shape. I just wish the debate had taken place during the election, instead of all the talk-show hosts whining about Bill Ayers.
95. BDB said the following at 3:14 PM on Jul 20:
Incidentally, Catholic hospitals, such as those run by the Sisters of Mercy and Adventist hospitals like Loma Linda provide vast amounts of free health care to those who cannot afford it.
I find it disturbing that one of the proposals tossed out is taxing all the current not-for-profit hostpitals, forcing them to become for-profit. It doesn't make sense to tax the providers who are giving free care, then turn around and pay the same providers below-market rates through universal coverage. That's just moving money from one bucket to the other. The government would take their cut, of course.
96. Zusanne said the following at 3:26 PM on Jul 20:
Bill Ayers? I wonder if bombing police stations and private homes is good for a person's health?
97. BDB said the following at 3:27 PM on Jul 20:
Lauren (#33) wrote:
>> Education is not a constitutional right therefore should public schools not be free?<<
Public, free education was created in part to discriminate against Catholics, by taxing them to pay for "public" schools, when they preferred to educate their own children. For more on this, look up Blaine Amendments. This is institutionalized discrimination at the STATE level.
It is an example of the warning in Galations 6:7: we will reap what we sow. Protestants originally created the Blaine Amendments to discriminate against Catholics. Now Protests are being forced out of the public square by the secularists using the exact same amendments. And this health care debate will have a huge impact on those Christians who are, in fact, providing health care to he poor through Christian hospitals. Government already controls 51% of all health-care dollars. Don't be surprised that the secular government wants to control all of it.
But like education, health care is something that belongs at a State, not Federal level. It would be far less contentious if the states handled these things in the way they saw fit. Rural health care will never look the same as urban health care, and it's a serious mistake to try and force something that might work in NYC on Wyoming.
98. Mike said the following at 3:27 PM on Jul 20:
Sarah P. (#90) wrote:
It especially doesn't make sense because the people arguing this tend to reverse the argument when it comes to abortion... a woman shouldn't be "forced" to allow the "parasite" to encroach on her rights to live a life as free from sexual responsibility as a man.
Heh, heh...Ain't it the truth?
99. Mike said the following at 3:36 PM on Jul 20:
Well, since everyone is throwing out anecdotes, I guess I'll contribute.
Many years ago, before I met my ex-wife, a girlfriend of hers married a British national (who has since immigrated to the US). They honeymooned in England, along with her teenaged daughter from a previous marriage. (A little odd, I'll admit, but bear with me.) During the trip, her daughter became seriously ill - enough to require hospitalization.
So, here she is, in a foreign hospital (during her honeymoon, no less) with a critically ill daughter. As it happened, the attending physician took her aside and asked, "You're an American citizen, aren't you?" "Yes, I am." "Let me give you some advice. Put your daughter on a plane and take her home if you want her to live. We can't treat her here. If she's not in an American hospital, she'll die."
Yikes.
Now, from time to time, I like to watch the so-called "Britcoms", sitcoms produced in Britain. (Haven't watched them in a while, come to think of it.) Anyway, one of them is called "Waiting for God", which chronicles the misadventures of the Bayview Retirement Village and a couple of retirees, one of whom is an elderly gent with a not-too-firm grasp on reality and the other is an elderly woman with a wicked tongue and an attitude to match.
One of the constant parodies of the show is the British health care system. They have done things like: Doctors setting a timer during a visit (because each patient only gets so long with the doctor); Tom (the gent) being relegated to a corridor after a surgery because there's no rooms available; an argument over why prostate cancer gets no government money - and the list goes on.
Now, again, this is anecdotal - and certainly not to be taken as any sort of barometer. However, given that the show is produced in England, I'd think the writers would have at least some basis for it.
Fair representation of the British system? Probably not; they probably have an axe to grind. But then again, so do most of our media...
100. BDB said the following at 3:42 PM on Jul 20:
David R. (#50) wrote:
>>With respect to health care, everyone in Canada is in the same boat. <<
No, they're not. I'm increasingly convinced that the only reason the Canadian health care system gets away with it's delays is that those Canadians who CAN afford private care simply come to the U.S. and get it. If that option wasn't so easy, those with money and power would demand improvements. As it is, they can just drive across the border and get their critical needs taken care of.
I'll bet this is why countries like Australia and Germany have a hybrid system with both a public component and availability of better/faster treatment for those who can pay.