Good morning, all! Doing a bit of co-blogging today so Rod can concentrate on other things.
Is it just me, or does some of the language being employed in the health care debate sound a little odd? For example:
House Democrats on Tuesday rolled out a far-reaching $1.5 trillion plan that for the first time would make health care a right and a responsibility for all Americans, with medical providers, employers and the wealthiest picking up most of the tab.
The federal government would be responsible for ensuring that every person, regardless of income or the state of their health, has access to an affordable insurance plan. Individuals and employers would have new obligations to get coverage, or face hefty penalties. [...]The legislation calls for a 5.4 percent tax increase on individuals making more than $1 million a year, with a gradual tax beginning at $280,000 for individuals. Employers who don't provide coverage would be hit with a penalty equal to 8 percent of workers' wages with an exemption for small businesses. Individuals who decline an offer of affordable coverage would pay 2.5 percent of their incomes as a penalty, up to the average cost of a health insurance plan. [All emphasis added--E.M.]
Now, there are plenty of other details in the House's plan that seem odd, such as the idea of expand Medicaid coverage for individuals and families up to 133 percent of the poverty line, but for the moment I'm more struck by the words being used. Health care is a right and a responsibility? Americans are obligated to purchase coverage, or they'll face penalties?
I think one of the frustrating things about talking about health care is that just about everyone agrees that people ought to be taken care of when they are ill or suffering. That's health care, and making sure people can get it is a good thing.
But what we're really talking about is mandating insurance coverage--and anyone who thinks that insurance coverage and health care are the same thing probably hasn't dealt with either one lately.
People who have insurance coverage can still lack access to health care. You might live in a rural area and need to see a specialist, for instance--but the nearest one is a considerable distance away, and you'll pay an "out of network" fee for going to see him, provided your primary care physician will give you the required recommendation in the first place. Having the option to buy a government insurance plan isn't going to change that situation for you in the least, and there's a chance that the government plan--should you switch to it--won't cover your visit to a specialist at all, especially if your condition is not life-threatening or doesn't meet other guidelines for care beyond a visit to your primary physician.
On the other side of the equation, people who lack insurance coverage aren't necessarily cut off from health care. The House plan estimates that 17 million people will remain without health insurance, half of them illegal immigrants. For this group of people, the availability of a government insurance plan doesn't change their ability to receive care at emergency rooms or similar facilities--and no, that's not adequate access to health care, but the point is that nothing about the new health care plan will change that. If you are an illegal immigrant in America, your ability to receive health care will be the same after a government plan option is initiated as it is beforehand.
Granted, for some people increasing their opportunities to purchase health insurance, subsidizing that insurance, and offering a government plan to compete with private insurance may help increase their overall access to health care--but for others of us, having more options to purchase health insurance, along with specific mandates to do so or be penalized, won't "fix" the aspects of health care our experiences of the industry find most broken at the present time.
Besides, when we employ the language of rights to talk about health care, I think we're in danger of losing sight of the pragmatic realities. It's true that people have certain basic human rights--food, clothing, shelter, and the like--and that the sick and suffering also have the right to receive care, even if we need to help them pay for it. But mandating that people be obligated to purchase health insurance, private or government-provided, or face penalties for the failure to do so may not change the landscape of health care as much as we'd like to think it will.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
And yet another party heard from...Dear Matt, please come up with an IDEA to fix the current health care mess. Your post sounds like a.) you're likely to inherit a bit of money at some point, but haven't quite gotten there yet, b.) you've never been sick or known anyone that's been sick, or c.) you're just silly.
An idea. Please. And yes, dear, health care in an industrialized country is a right. But, news flash...it doesn't matter if it is or not. As a Christian (I'm assuming you consider yourself one) you are to care for the least of these. If you'll recall your reading of the Holy Gospels, that requirement comes without equivocation or excuse. Get on that, will ya.
Dear RSG,
I expected the ad hominem attack you posted, devoid of argument refuting my points. Thank you for being predictable. Both my parents are dead, my mom after extended alzheimers, so no inheritance coming this way, thanks, and my appendix is in a jar somewhere, so I know the outlines of death's door. But that is completely beside the point. The only one with an absolute right to someone else's labor is a slave owner, a concept I believe we abandoned at great human cost some time ago. Now as to ideas, please open your eyes; first of all to the concept that there is no health care "mess." That tired canard is trotted out to justify all government intervention usually most quickly when government intervention goes afoul. Google "Republican health care plan" and read to your heart's content as to other ideas. As to the government solution, go to Mark Levin's web page and review the materials from July 1 discussing the real health care crisis in the model government-run British health care system.
But now to your real point, that Jesus instructs that we force others to pay for someone's health care. Please show me chapter and verse or that. This argument is trotted out to shame Christians into supporting government's expansion of its coercive force, but Jesus told us as individuals to help the poor, not force others, especially unbelievers, to do the same! What a terrible witness, using the coercive power of government to enforce your beliefs. Sounds like conquistador talk to me!
Matt, I am truly sorry for the loss of your parents.
That said, the health care system is a mess. You saying it is not does not make it less so. I will reiterate what I said before about the work my mother does with cancer patients and her CONSTANT battle to get insurance companies to provide the care the patients have paid for. Go ask someone in the health care system. Go ask someone trying to get their HMO to provide them with the doctor that they need. Talk to someone without health insurance who is unable to afford basic medicines and sees their bronchitis turn to pneumonia.
This isn't about slave labor. No one is suggesting doctors not get paid for the work they provide. That's a red herring. But what we are talking about is that it is a perfectly reasonable expectation that people in an industrialized nation, particularly those who contribute to that industry, have access to health care. And while it is certainly more dramatic to say that Jesus said we should force others to pay for someone's health care, that is not what I said. What I said, what Jesus said, is that we need to be concerned for the least of these. In fact, we are to help them. Whether we do that through our churches, individually, or yes, Matt, through the government depends on what the need is and the MOST EFFICIENT way to meet it. Any shame you feel about what I said is on you. It's not an "attempt to shame" anyone into more government involvement. It's a statement of fact, and if you read the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, it seems to be part of how we will be judged when we stand before our God.
And the reality is, Matt, you already pay for the health care of the uninsured, every time they come into an ER with a perfectly treatable illness or problem that has gotten wildly out of hand. When they are unable to pay because of unemployment or whatever, that cost is passed on to you. It is wildly inefficient. As conservatives, shouldn't we be concerned with spending our money in the most efficient way possible? And if our health care comes from a tax, we would not be paying our premiums, ergo if we are paying at or less from our paychecks what we are paying now for care that is revamped and more efficient, isn't that a good thing?
No one is suggesting the European model is perfect. There are certainly problems with some countries and their delivery systems. I would offer to you the systems in Germany and France, which seem to be much less frustrating to the users and the medical providers.
Dear RSG, Everyone else has moved off this post so it's just you and me and we can be honest. You don't really believe the stuff you post. You certainly are not a Christian. You probably once were, which is why you pulled the Beliefnet beat. You might even be a PK, but it's more likely you just grew up in a conservative christian house and became disillusioned with what you saw as the "hypocrisy" of your church. Been there, done that. Your desire to help others, however, has led you to another calling, working for people who really want to change the world for the better. They are lying to you. Soros and his tax-evading, pork-grubbing comrades only want to impose their vision of the world on everyone else by gaining more and more political power. They are driven by an intense hatred and contempt for people who disagree with them and who want to let people do their own thing, free of governmental interference. Let me give you one example. If you now believe in the foundation of Roe v. Wade, that a woman has the right to decide, with her doctor, what to do with her body, free from governmental interference, how can you support creating a system where government will make EVERY health care decision for you. Have you read about treatments that they deny or delay because of cost and EFFICIENCY concerns? You should, because someday your life may depend on a healthcare decision and I can assure you, you are going to want to control that decision. You may be fine dying or you may want to fight, but you certainly won't want a government bureaucrat deciding for you based on EFFICIENCY. But let's get to the meat of the matter, here. If you had something else you could believe in, you wouldn't be trusting these folks. I work for government and see how laws, regulations, and policies are made. If anyone is telling you that government is the efficient answer, they are condemnably lying to you. The ultimate driver of government is obtaining and keeping power and it infects EVERYTHING government does. That's why Jesus steadfastly refused to seek political power from his first temptation to Peter's final rebuke. It pollutes everything that is good and decent, namely one soul, nakedly, honestly, sacrificing for the benefit of another in deference to a reward in heaven. God forgave my apostasy and is confirming that his Spirit is the one true guide, not the Church, its doctrines, its programs, or its people. I might be wrong about you, you might be a true socialist, just out to poison others in their attempt to honestly figure out what is right, but if I am right, trust God, not man. I pray for you.
Matt:
That's kind of comical, actually. Let me introduce myself to you, if you give a rat's behind. http://rsgreen30.wordpress.com
I'm checking out. Have a good one.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.