The Healthcare Crisis Gets Personal (by Jim Wallis)
Joy and I woke up yesterday morning at 5:00 a.m. to the sounds of our screaming four-year-old, Jack, who was suffering from extreme abdominal pain. We tried to console and cuddle him, but to no avail. "Don't touch me, it really hurts!" he cried, when we tried to examine or gently rub his sore tummy. This was not like him at all; he is not an overreactive kid. We had to go get him at school that day because he was vomiting and had diarrhea. He had a quiet afternoon at home and went to sleep easily, but now was literally wailing and inconsolable.
It's every parent's greatest fear - a sick child, maybe very sick, and in the middle of the night. How serious might it be? Could it be appendicitis - or something equally bad? This wasn't like Jack. Then nine-year-old Luke, who had been awakened by Jack's crying, was in our room too - tired, scared, and also crying. What should we do? I called our health provider and got a nurse advisor. After I described Jack's symptoms and distress, she said, "Take him to the emergency room at Children's Hospital." So we threw clothes on and rushed out to the garage. There was snow on the ground and ice on the steps as I carried my screaming and scared little boy. "Why didn't I put on boots with a grip?" I asked myself, as I carefully but hurriedly climbed down the treacherous steps with Jack in my arms.
We got in the car and headed into the deserted Washington, D.C. streets on our way to an emergency room we hoped and prayed was not too busy. Joy drove with Luke, who was asking all kinds of worried questions, while I tried to calm Jack (and myself) in the back seat by praying out loud that God would keep him safe. Luke joined in the prayers. We arrived at the ER, and I rushed in with Jack while Joy and Luke went to park the car.
It's the moment of panicked parenthood, rushing into the emergency room with your suffering and frightened child, almost frantically surveying the room for where you should go. "He's got severe abdominal pains; we need to see a doctor now!" I almost shout to the first person I encounter. I am in no mood to fill out papers and forms and talk about insurance coverage as I slap Jack's insurance card on the reception desk.
Fortunately, we are quickly accepted and admitted. They are all very attentive, compassionate, and professional. From the intake personnel, to the nurses, to the doctors (we were lucky enough to get the head of the ER who was on his shift just them), everybody was clearly competent and concerned. Joy and Luke rushed in soon after we did and we were all taken to a clean and quiet room where Jack was quickly and comprehensively examined. They spoke reassuringly as they looked at our little boy, telling us what they were going to do and what the possibilities were. Right away they got an IV to hydrate him and administer some pain-reducing medicine that was gentle for children. He got quieter and seemed to relax.
I saw a hospital system focus on a little boy with time, energy, concern, and (I assume) lots of financial resources. They did several X-rays of his stomach, chest, and lungs, and even did a comprehensive ultrasound to look for any sign of an inflamed appendix. The medicine was working its wonders and Jack was getting sleepy. But I had to wake him up, sit, and stand him up for the X-rays. My little trooper was a star as he stood still the best he could, even after such a traumatic morning, waiting for the technician to "take a picture of your tummy," as I told him. He looked up at me with such vulnerable and trusting eyes and said, "Even if my tummy can't smile." Afterward, I knew he was becoming himself again when he began to make several observations about the environment around him and philosophized, "When you're sad, and they turn you upside down, it turns into a smile." Yes, I said, amazed at how perspective does indeed change everything.
Joy was running Luke to school now, as Jack and I moved around the hospital for all the tests, in what we began to call his "traveling bed," which he thought was quite cool. Jack's big brother Luke was really worried and kept pressing his mom on whether Jack was okay and "wasn't going to die, right?" She assured him that his little brother was in very good hands now and would be alright. "Without Jack, life would be nothing," Luke tearfully lamented. "The first four years of my life were really boring!" he exclaimed to his moved and bemused mother.
She was back now in the hospital after dropping Luke off at school. Jack was resting comfortably back in our safe little room in the ER, and the doctor came in to tell us the results of all the testing, X-rays, and diagnosis. "Your son has pneumonia," he said, shocking us both. A nagging cough had settled into his left lung and was making him vomit while putting very painful pressure on his diaphragm and abdomen. But they were going to start administering the antibiotic right then and there, and, with a couple days of rest and quiet, he would start to get better. And there was no sign of appendicitis.
Several hours after our frightful awakening, we got Jack home and I got the antibiotic that was so critical to his healing at our health care provider's pharmacy. It was $10. And all the other care my son had received that morning was already paid for by our insurance. Jack was home, comfortable, and safe; while his mom and dad were greatly relieved. After Luke borrowed his fourth grade teacher's cell phone to call home to see how Jack was, he was finally relieved too.
But I began to think how different this all would have been if we were a family who didn't have health insurance and therefore hesitated or were afraid to go to the emergency room. Or, if we were "undocumented" and were terrified to take our child to a hospital. Or, if we were parents in Uganda living hundreds of miles from a doctor and just had to listen to our screaming child and hope that he wouldn't die.
My policy views on health care reform are very public. But this morning made it all very personal. Every parent, no matter who they are and where they live, can easily have the kind of trauma over the health of a child that we had. And every parent should have the medical care that we got. It's just wrong if they don't. What I realized most was how important it is for those who have that care to fight for those who don't. Other parents love their children just as fiercely as we love Jack, pray just as fervently for their healing, and have the right - as absolutely equally important children of God - to good and affordable health care. God loves all the children as much as God loves Jack, and its time to build a health care system in this country that respects that fundamental moral affirmation.
Add to:
Category: Children, Healthcare
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
OMGoodness: Attentative compassionate,professional, competent and concerned staff backed up by time, energy and lots of financial resources! Not to mention having to spend $10 of your own money on the prescription. That is a crisis! But the real scary question is, how was George Bush able to give your child pneumonia?
Posted by: debario | December 7, 2007 3:03 PM
Jim,
Even with insurance, there can be a crisis. I am disabled, and my wife has insurance through where she works.
Her employer changed coverage this year which resulted in our costs going up dramatically (with no wage increase)This year we spent 20% of our gross income on health care. Income wise, with a family of 5 , we live right at or a little above the poverty level. I am not complaining, but it is becoming increasingly harder to keep up with the cost of health care. Dying is far cheaper :)
I am grateful we have coverage, but it continues to cost us more and more.
The health care system in broke. Humpty Dumpty broke. It is not something that the "market" can fix. It requires our government stepping in and forcing the issue so that everyone can have accessible, affordable health care.
Bruce Gerencser
www.brucegerencser.com
Posted by: Bruce Gerencser | December 7, 2007 3:19 PM
Posted by: debario | December 7, 2007 3:03 PM
Humor abounds (lol)
But - I will go on record that if we have nationalize health care and the gov't is in charge. I do not believe that Wallis would be writing the same article. I think he would be talking about how long they had to wait till they were seen. How they were scheduled to have tests run - in a few days, at different locations. Medications were available and they got them - days after they were in the hospital. This is what my sister is experiencing living in the UK. She needed surgery on one of the 'women' things. No - it was not acute. But she was notified by 'snail-mail' when the surgery would take place - 6 months later. She did not want the procedure that they were suggesting. So she went and did her own research about what her options were. She talked with the surgeon about it and he said that they did not do that procedure at this hospital. She informed him that it was developed at this hospital by a Dr. on staff. By the time he did his 'homework' - they had to reschedule the surgery for a later date - 2 months past the one she had.
There has to be something that would work for soceity between the two programs. But the answer is not another gov't program. I am personally not counting on SS for when I retire and even if I do get 'something' I will never get all the money I paid into the system paid out to me or my spouce.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 7, 2007 3:30 PM
Debario,
Humor doesn't abound, but sarcasm does. And I'm not even sure you read the entire post. He wasn't complaining about the care his child received--rather he was very impressed and thankful for it. His point was that not eveyone has access to the kind of care and peace of mind that he, a very worried parent, was able to attain. Respond to his point, rather than the point you think he was going to make--a point he didn't make at all.
Posted by: squeaky | December 7, 2007 4:03 PM
Dibario, Jim Wallis didn't have a "crisis" because he had insurance to cover the cost. The "crisis" is people without insurance who need medical treatment. Since you are obviously against Universal Health Care what do you think should be done to help the uninsured. Bush has recommended tax cuts as a way to solve the problem although I can't quite see how poor people who have little to no money would benefit from tax cuts to help pay medical bills.
Posted by: Richard | December 7, 2007 4:05 PM
I see another issue with this.
Being an Asian-American, I'm still convinced the dominant majority (white Americans), more specifically those in favor of Universal health care, is way too idealistic when it comes to how universal healthcare will play out when it comes to race.
While reading this entry, I just thought, "They got this kind of attention because they're white." I am not a token "angry black person" or a desperate "Hispanic," etc., but am what white people have labeled me, a "model minority" educated Korean-American. And yes, I have very close white friends.
I appreciate Jim's post here. But white Americans need to realize that minorities (even Asian-Americans, the "model" minorities) will suffer under the race game and even with health care, will deal with racist undertones when it comes to the quality of service.
Posted by: Dan | December 7, 2007 4:23 PM
Posted by: squeaky | December 7, 2007 4:03 PM
I know what Wallis is saying and I have just played it out to a very logical conclusion. I believe that their is an answer to the issue somewhere between one and the other. In MN kids are covered with several programs. I believe in benovelence but you have to be responsible too. I do not want a Canadian or UK system here in the US.
Please name me the last new drug that came out to Canada or the UK that had a major impact on the health of the world on any cronic ailment? There is none. At best they have taken and developed a generic when it was legally possible.
There is nothing as costly as Gov't run free health care.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 7, 2007 4:28 PM
Well, here you go, Moderatelad. I have an ex-girlfriend and a former co-worker and a college buddy who all live in countries with single-payer systems (not UK) and they just think their health insurance system is SOOOO much better than ours and wouldn't trade it in a second! They've never had to wait and they can choose their own doctor, to boot. See what happens when we argue about national health care using anecdotes?
And actually, the UK is one of the few European countries that doesn't have a single-payer system, but a blend of public and private. Apparently they are doing something wrong over there, but that doesn't mean we can't do better.
Posted by: I and I | December 7, 2007 4:41 PM
Moderatelad,
I wasn't responding to your post. I was responding to Debario--hence the reason I addressed the post to Debario.
Nor did I say anything about government health care. However, I don't think it is a stretch to say there are definite problems with our health care system--the question is what to do about it. What do you suggest? I think it is time people stop complaining about the health care plans others have suggested unless they have their own plan to suggest. You may not agree with their solution, but at least they have taken the time to study the problem and suggest a solution. The productive thing would be to do the following:
1. Identify the positives of the proposed plan
2. Identify the weaknesses and challenges of the proposed plan
That would be a means of hammering out a viable solution. Simply poking holes in other's suggestions accomplishes nothing.
It is useful to look at other nations as examples of those who have universal health care, but it is not useful to say it could never work here because of a couple reasons
1. we have a different form of government and are not the same country (analogy: the Vikings let go of Chris Hovan because he wasn't effective anymore, but for some reason he thrives in Tampa Bay. Maybe Adrian Peterson wouldn't be as successful on another team because they don't have the O-line the Vikings do.)
2. just because it doesn't work great somewhere else doesn't mean we can't study their model, identify problems with it, and make improvements on it (like say, the West Coast offense...although up until recently most would say it has not been improved upon by Chili. the point is, something that works or doesn't work in one part of the world doesn't mean it will or will not work here)
their plans can be studied as examples of what to do and what not to do, but I don't think universal health care should be dismissed just because others have not been able to get it to work perfectly. I'm not saying universal health care is the answer, but I am saying that just because it doesn't work in one place it can't work here, especially since we have insights as observers of their system that may help us avoid some of their pitfalls. Maybe we just need a better quarterback or a stronger pass rush. Who knows? The best thing to do is study those systems that succeed and don't succeed for the aspects that might work in any possible health care solution we would seek. That is a much more productive approach than dismissing the solutions others produce out of hand without evaluating the postive aspects of their suggestions.
(Sorry--couldn't resist the football analogies. Go Vikes.)
Posted by: squeaky | December 7, 2007 5:09 PM
One of my daughters' lives in Germany where they have a health care system that is closer to the US model than the UK one. In her Church and social network are doctors who have worked in both the British NHS and in Germany. They tell her that despite the negative press, the British NHS is more efficient and financially responsible than the German one that subjects patients to a lot of unnecessary tests and investigations even for quite minor conditions. My small grandson for example was subjected to an invasive blood test for a very small patch of ezcema which woud have been just been treated in the UK with a very mild steroid cream and no nasty needles.
This daughter had another baby earlier this year at a German hospital where the care was excellent as was the home midwifery care afterwards. For some reason the female US Embassy staff or their wives are advised to return to the States to have their babies as it is deemed too dangerous for them to give birth in Europe!!
A friend's 18 month grandaughter in Colorado was recently catheterized just to get a urine sample, a physically and emotionally traumatic experience which is generally banned in the UK where there are more child friendly methods of collecting urine samples (special pads in nappies etc).
What I am trying to illustrate is that all countries and health care systems have examples of good and bad practise. What Jim was saying is that access to health care shouldn't depend on income, insurance or race. It is completely beyond me to understand how any decent human being, let alone any Christian, would object to some sort of health care provision for children, the elderly, vulnerable adults etc.
Debario's comments at the start of the thread seem particually mean and partisan. Nobody blames Bush for Jack Wallis's pneumonia. We do blame his administration however for the current high infant mortality rates in Iraq and among the Afro-American population in places like New Orleans and the deep South.
Posted by: Annie (UK) | December 7, 2007 5:52 PM
Economicswise, health-care is what people call inelastic. When you need it, you really need it. When you don't, you don't. It isn't clear where all the health-care dollars are going in our country. Hospitals say they're on the verge of bankruptcy, doctors and nurses are not becoming millionaires, drug companies are making heathy (but NOT obscene) profits, and so on. I heard that paperwork accounts for 20% of the costs. But even if it were zero, it still is too much. Could overregulation be the culprit? From a chemistry perspective, I'm always curious why chemicals for medical use cost 3-5 times as much as REAGENT GRADE chemicals marked for lab use. What about so-called "defensive medicine" (running unneeded tests and procedures to preempt dubious malpractice suits)? I don't know. What about the push for so-called perfection (always get the "best" procedure, even if it's only marginally better than the second best, while costing 10X as much)?
OTOH, a lot of the expensive equipment's costs (like MRI scanners) are fixed, and simply reducing demand for the scanners would INCREASE the cost of individual scans. But machines end up costing a fortune when the number produced is low. The issues are complex. It would be a tremendous act of leadership if the federal government would appoint a blue-ribbon panel to study this issue in depth, WITHOUT distortions from all the lobbyists of all stripes, who tend to engage in scaremongering whenever any proposal is made against the status quo.
Posted by: Ngchen | December 7, 2007 6:04 PM
I believe that you can get the best of the best and make health care affordable and keep the gov't out of the decision making process. But you also have to deal with problems that are not health care imposed but greatly effect it and the costs.
1) get the lawyers out - it is a practice not a science. The same medicine or operation that you have may not be effective on me. They do their best and mistakes are made - we're human. Compensate for don't rape the institution for their money. (I am watching the Quaid twins and how their parents handle the situation)
2) allow people to die 3 to 5 months prior than most of them do. and no I don't want to hire a Dr. Jack. From what I have read and heard 80% of our health care costs is caused by people 80 years and older. If you are born you will die, no one gets off the planet alive. Rather than all the heroics that happen with many the last few months of their lives - especially those with a cronic condition. Between the person, their family, clergy and a doctor. Make the decision ahead of the game when you are going to go from agressive treatment to comfort care because the battle is lost and so is the war. Allow people to die with grace and peace.
3) (I will be skewered for this one) Stop underwriting illegitmancy so to not perpetuate the problem. Children born without a mother and a father most likely end up in poverty. If the parent can not provide for the child - the state will pay for one but not two. If the mother refuses to name the father so that we can hold him responsible - then only one child. We keep feeding the problem and then wonder why it will not go away. This will not solve the whole situation - but it will decrease the liability.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 7, 2007 6:07 PM
Well--I think the first two of those suggestions are aspects that should be considered strongly. I would also suggest that insurance companies have also played a huge role in elevating the cost of health care.
The problem I see with 3 is that the child should never have to pay for the mistakes of the parent. It's not the child's fault the parent is irresponsible. So, you aren't penalizing the person at fault, but the person who is the result of that person's mistakes. Most pro-lifer's make that same argument about the fetus, so what is applicable for the fetus is just as applicable for the child, and moreso. Why should we care for the fetus, work hard to make sure the mother doesn't abort the fetus, and then offer no support once the child is born? I agree you identify a problem, but punishing an innocent child for its parents' mistake is not the solution. Refusing care to subsequent children will not stop people from having children--well, maybe it will because what it is very likely to do is encourage even more abortions if the parent sees no means of supporting that child. Of course, this is a whole other topic altogether...
Posted by: squeaky | December 7, 2007 6:37 PM
"And every parent should have the medical care that we got. It's just wrong if they don't."
First, I'm glad your son is doing well. My daughter was very ill when she was two, I know the feeling.
Of course, we were on medicaid then, so we went straight to the ER after talking to the nurse over the phone. They did all the X-rays, etc. We didn't pay a penny.
Now I feel like Russel Crowe in Cinderella Man, ready to pay it back.
So, who is it exactly that can't afford medical care in America? Those just above poverty.
As to your statement above, "every parent should" you are right. But who will pay? Whose responsibility is it to pay?
If those just above poverty pay more in taxes than those in poverty, then they pay for the poor's medical care which they cannot afford.
I suppose we could just milk the rich, that's the general thought process at work here, isn't it? But is that view really honest and sophisticated enough to merit acceptance without more careful inspection?
There are negative effects to milking the rich. It can really mess up the economy, and make us all poorer off. We have to be careful.
If we were to accept the peculiarity of the Christian ethic, we would have to admit that it is the full and exclusive responsibility of Christians to care for the least of these. That is - it is the Church's responsibility to care for all of the least of these, and it is only the church's responsibility.
If we really believe we live by a higher ethic than we must also accept that it cannot be imposed on those who do not accept it voluntarily. This means that paying for medical care for the poor through taxation of the rich is unjustified.
But what if the poor are not taken care of adequately? We have only ourselves, as the church, to blame.
Perhaps if mainline congregations renewed their support for their denomination's hospitals we would be making a step in the right direction. Perhaps if more than 3% of Christians gave their tithe. Perhaps if we didn't allow ourselves to feel absolved of our responsibility because "the government will do it."
Nathanael Snow
ndsnow@gmail.com
Posted by: jurisnaturalist | December 7, 2007 7:25 PM
So, you aren't penalizing the person at fault, but the person who is the result of that person's mistakes.
So - we are just going to dismiss this and let any female be serviced by any stud and then let them make tracks because the state will take care of them. We have a 'friend' - and I will admit I am the one that step away because she was not an example that I wanted my kids to be too connected with. She is a single Mom and has four children. The first one we came along side of her as she felt that she was 'taken advantage of' by the sperm donor. When she became pregant with number to - I could not believe it but was still there showing love - buying diapers etc. When 3 and 4 came along and I found out it was the same donor for each - I lost it. I still send each child a b-day card with some money in it for them - but that is it. (I guess I am now the bad person) I have paid for each and every one of her children and I have worked a FT and PT job so that my wife only had to work PT for many years. Our friend compained that she was not getting enough money for her kids. When I told our friend that she should look for a PT job now that her kids were in school - she told me off and said that I was insenitive to her needs. Her needs - do you realize how much money I gave her directly and indirectly. Do you think that my wife would have liked to have spent more time with our kids? We were planning on only two but I shot one more by the goalie prior to my little 'snip-snip'. My boss did not offer me a raise to compensate for me having another mouth to feed.
We have got to figure out how to stop women from having children to get more money and they do. We have got to figure out how to hold the 'donor' accountable and make them get a job and provide support. Otherwise we might as well let the rabits have at it and open the borders and just let anyone come in because we will take care of the world.
I am %^& stick and tired that I am held to a higher standard and then labeled insensitive when I ask the same of others and still have to pick up the tab. Our friend should have had 8 kids and then they all could have 8 - do worry - the gov't will pay for your children. In about 30 years when we are paying for half our population to sit on their backsides, (or lay on their backs) and we are going bankrupt - then maybe someone will ask the question - 'what are we going to do...?'
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 7, 2007 8:36 PM
I am some what annoyed by those who blame the poor for being poor.
There are issues of opportunity. If you can say that any child born in the US, NZ, Can., Aust., UK etc has the same probability of achieving a Noble prize, then you can blame the poor for being poor.
Dickens in his books from another time, another Empire, out lined many of the problems which generated the social changes in that society which have and do reduced those problems.
If a society does not respect its contract with its citizens of providing a safe and healthy environment with opportunity to succeed, do not expect those citizens who are left out of the inner circle to respect the rules/laws/ethos of that society. They have no positive benefit / incentive to do so.
Perhaps slavery is an option. Slaves must be looked after like cattle or pigs, no feed and care, no production.
Posted by: JEH | December 7, 2007 9:07 PM
Moddielad says:
I will go on record that if we have nationalize health care and the gov't is in charge. I do not believe that Wallis would be writing the same article. I think he would be talking about how long they had to wait till they were seen.
Only if you Yanks prove to be at the bottom of the worldwide competence league when you finally catch up with the rest of the developed world
Mark
Posted by: mark | December 7, 2007 11:34 PM
Everyone is a composite of both liberal and conservative values. We differ on what one wants to conserve and is willing to be liberal about, while the other might want to conserve something different and be willing to be liberal about some none or all of what the other wants.
Name-calling does not advance the human race toward solutions to problems. It impedes the communication that would expidite the solution. Let's try to work together, rather than take pokes at each other. Then Our Father will be smiling at His children, and be able to help us help each other.
Posted by: Fr. Bill | December 8, 2007 2:58 AM
Jim,
You would have had health insurance for your children (called SCHIP) if your family income had been less than twice the minimum wage (called SCHIP).
However, without health insurance (even as an illegal alien, even without having a dime to your name) you would have received the same care in the Emergency Room. Isn't that the law of the land?
Posted by: Hans Cornelder | December 8, 2007 7:27 AM
Jim and Joy, I'm so glad little Jack is doing better. Please give him a hug from me!
Posted by: Rachel | December 8, 2007 12:47 PM
Thanks be to God for those who serve in the healing professions.
Thanks be to God for those who seek to bring "daily bread" in the form of health care to all God's children.
Thanks be to God for those participating in this conversation, seeking that the Father's will be done here on earth as in heaven- where there are no borders, illegals, or children left behind.
It is a big challenge to seek the Fathe'rs will given our various theologies, ideologies, and perspectives!
Finally, may Jack and the Wallis family experience healing through our Lord. Amen.
Peace, Duh-sciple
Posted by: Duh-sciple | December 8, 2007 12:53 PM
To Jim Wallis:
Glad to hear your son is better. Thank you for advocating for positive change. I too am thankful that I have good insurance and access to healthcare and I wish the same for everybody- it is the Christian attitude to have. You embody that attitude very well, Jim. Again, thank you and best wishes.
Jim
Posted by: JamesMartin | December 8, 2007 3:12 PM
Thank you Duh-sciple (love the name), JamesMartin, and Fr. Bill for your affirmative comments.
Sooner or later, we likely all come to appreciate the gift of ER care--the good, bad and ugly--hoping all persons with care needs would receive the best and avoid the worst.
Is this not an issue with a thousand fronts to address--worthy of the best minds,hearts, and hands? It feels like everyone intensely involved with the 'health system' is having the life squeezed out of them--even when everything more or less works.
I believe a ripe area for 'Christian input' is a coherent, compelling, ethics-based vision for health and wholeness--to elevate our purposes in this area. Without this, needed reforms are very difficult; because changes to a stressed/complex system always have a perceived downside somewhere else in the system. Further, the 'universal stress' in the system likely reveals a system with some powerfully misplaced values.
Our vision can flow out of a heart for Shalom--including the 'waging of a war' against sickness and death (spiritual and physical); while understanding death carries no ultimate power over us. It can flow out of a desire for a vitality that can be stewarded for God's purposes. And it can embace a holistic view of healthfulness for individuals, families and communities.
I am saddened, given the historic (and continued) contribution the Christian church has made to delivering health services, building hospitals, developing senior care faciilities, etc. around the world; how weak our voice has been in communicating a socio-theological vision to compel Christian action on the thousand fronts related to this issue.
I can think of a dozen ways this past week my life has bumped against different aspects of this issue; and each makes a demand on me, that I trust I have been faithful with
Posted by: letjusticerolldwon | December 9, 2007 2:09 PM
Posted by: mark | December 7, 2007 11:34 PM
'...you Yanks prove to be at the bottom...'
So - we are still fighting the war - the south is going to rise again?
Whatever -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 9, 2007 5:31 PM
Moderatelad,
I think the fellow's a Brit, to whom we are all 'Yanks, if we can remember that far back...
letjusticerolldown,
You present a desire to see the whole, and a call for Christian thought which does not fail to include ethical considerations. An excellent proposal.
Allow me to begin:
How much should we spend on health care? I mean this in several ways:
How much should I spend on health care?
How much should you spend on health care?
How much should states spend on health care?
How much should the federal government spend on health care?
How much should the Church spend on health care?
These are overlapping questions, relating to demand of health care.
The flip side is supply: How much health care should there be?
It is only because there is a limited supply of health care that costs are so high. To be sure, we have more health care provided to us today than ever before, but our demand for health care is also higher than ever before.
Many individuals who post here espouse an anti-consumerist attitude toward worldly goods. At what point of health care consumption does it join this category?
There is a related problem: the lower the cost of health care is forced, the more people will want to buy it. If there is a limited supply of health care then some other method must be used to ration it out. In the UK, some people have to queue. That's how they do it. In other places, providers are bribed. There is no escaping the reality of rationing when supply is limited.
If we decide to make health care unlimited, what are we willing to give up to get it (or give it)? I purchase health care according to this tradeoff. If I want more health care I will have to consume less food, less education, less clothing, or I will have to work more, which takes away from leisure time spent with my family and at church (and blogging...).
And who has the place to tell me if I am consuming too much of something? Only my brothers and sisters in Christ according to the movement of the Spirit in their lives confronting me in love. And what place does the Christian have in judging the consumption habits of unbelievers? Only to grieve and to demonstrate God's love to them.
Each of us can consume too much of anything, ever health care. Do I really need to go to the dentist twice a year? I've got a wisdom tooth they told me needed to be pulled 4 years ago, or it would cause a cavity. The cost? $1000. I still have the tooth and no cavity.
Do I need to go to the doctor when I get the flu? Only because of the drug monopoly which prevents me from buying Amoxacilin over the counter.
And the more health care I consume the more it drives up the price of health care for someone else. Are you willing to forgo that cosmetic procedure to help keep the price of health care down the way you encourage others to drive less and keep the price of gasoline down, and to eat less and keep the price of food down?
These issues are indeed complex, and oversimplification, rhetoricizing, and politicization will add nothing to the discussion.
Nathanael Snow
ndsnow@gmail.com
Posted by: jurisnaturalist | December 9, 2007 6:46 PM
Why should healthcare cost anything? Jesus healed for free--why shouldn't that be our model for healthcare?
Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 9, 2007 11:03 PM
And if you lose your health, because you don't have access to sufficent health care due to lack of insurance, suddenly you can't work or take care of your kids. If you can't work, you will very quickly have no home and no food. A neat little line of dominoes.
It's nice to have health insurance. Mine is pretty good too (except that it doesn't pay for naturopathic doctors - bad for me, because I'm chemically sensitive. I have to pay for mine out of my Health Savings Account.). But the costs keep on going up - both for me and for the company I work for. This can only go on this way for so long. And eventually, the company will be forced to reduce their benefits, and my portion of the tab will become too expensive - and there I'll be without insurance again!
It's hard to pick out just one problem with the health care system.
First, there's the whole issue of "How can health care BOTH be genuinely concerned about sick people AND at the same time, be for sale to the general public on Wall Street?"
Wall Street cares about PROFITS and quarterly earnings statements and returns on shares.
What does that have to do with sick people and health care? Health insurance companies are trying to serve TWO masters.
I'm not against profits for American companies. The place I work for is listed on Wall Street. But they sell an item that, although it would greatly enrich your life - it isn't a vital necessity! If the prices go up - you could live quite nicely without it.
Not so with health care.
And so we have shareholders pushing for more returns on their investments - and that topples the next domino - health insurance companies looking for ways to skimp on services provided to people, or else raising the cost.
No man can serve 2 masters.
I'm all for health insurance companies being run with sound management - but I honestly believe that health insurance companies have no business dabbling around on Wall Street. Health insurance companies need to go back to being run by non-profits.
Second, we need more education of people in prevention and how to take care of basic things themselves. There are a lot of herbs that will take care of minor problems before they turn into major ones. That could save a lot of money. We simply DO have to use health care wisely.
Posted by: Amazon Creek | December 10, 2007 3:11 AM
In our mediium size city we have a city councilman, who is a conservative Republican, trying hard to pass a new law to not allow undocumented workers and families to go to emergency rooms to get medical attention like this.
Obviously, he is not a "compassionate conservative" variety.
Posted by: Steve | December 10, 2007 9:08 AM
"So - we are just going to dismiss this and let any female be serviced by any stud and then let them make tracks because the state will take care of them."
That's an '80s argument. Out-of-wedlock births have been going down nationally for quite a few years now. Until this year, when they increased slightly.
"We have got to figure out how to stop women from having children to get more money and they do."
That's a 1996 argument. As a result of federal welfare reform that year, all states except two have instituted "family caps" that limit the number of children in a family that can be counted toward welfare benefits.
Contrary to what Reagan said, facts are not stupid things.
Posted by: I and I | December 10, 2007 10:11 AM
Ashpenaz - So you do believe that Jesus healed the sick and made the lame able to walk? I thought you believed as Spong does that "The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity."
Just wondering which it is...
And just because health care doesn't cost me anything doesn't mean it's free. Someone is always paying...unless, of course, Jesus is the one dispensing it.
Posted by: Eric | December 10, 2007 10:31 AM
Debario, since you mentioned sex education (my, how things get off topic to bash the liberals) we know that conservative Republicans believe today that if we'd just get those condoms out of the schools, those teenagers would stop having sex.
Posted by: steve | December 10, 2007 10:35 AM
It can be a very different experience not only if you lack health insurance but if you have the "wrong disease." I have a chronic, progressive, incurable one. Great insurance - but you can't imagine what my family and I have been and are going through these last fifteen years. One receives the distinct impression that one's insurance would like to see one dead. Wish I were kidding.
Overall, there is a nationwide trend for extent of coverage to go down as premiums rise. Unregulated capitalism at its best, I guess. Since Reagan, most of our presidents have appeared determined to bring us back to pre-FDR/New Deal times; we're most of the way back already. They change the phrase from time to time, but it's all the same "trickle down." Meanwhile the gap between rich and poor grows.
Paul - originalfaith.com
Posted by: Paul Maurice Martin | December 10, 2007 10:41 AM
Jim - here's wishing your little boy and your family good health. God be with you!
Posted by: splinterlog | December 10, 2007 10:41 AM
Moderatelad,
In your impassioned response, you forgot to address my point that we regard the fetus much more highly than the child. Why is it not the fetus' responsibility for the mother's mistake, but apparently it is the child's? Why should the fetus not have to pay for the mother's mistake, but the child should? You would, no doubt, be aghast if someone were to get an abortion (assuming you are pro-life, so forgive me if my assumption is incorrect). Instead, it is better to bring a child into the world who does not have any support and must pay for the sins of its parents. You have to realize you can't have your cake and eat it too on this issue. Either you support the fetus AND the child that develops from the fetus, or any prolife stance is toothless.
Did I say we should dismiss the problem? No. You put words into my mouth. In fact, I said "I agree you identify a problem." I merely said your response has some obvious pitfalls. Why do you interpret me pointing out the pitfalls as dismissing the problem? Now that I have identified them, how do you get past them? I agree this is a problem, but the solution is not to penalize the child. It's not the child's fault. So please suggest a solution that penalizes the parents but does not harm the child's chances of living a productive life.
As for your friend--I'm glad you took it on yourself to walk beside her. However, you have fallen into the trap that many who do good fall into--the one where you pick up the pieces no matter what mistakes the person makes, thus enabling them. My suggestion would be that instead of enabling her, help her isolate what her problem really is, which I, without even knowing her, would bet she sees herself as nothing and needs the "love" of a man to find fulfillment. Most negative human behavior is rooted in a person's self-loathing. Why else would she not care enough about herself to have the dignity to protect her own interests? She clearly has tied her self-worth into her ability to provide a "service" for men, and she needs to see herself as having more worth than that. These men are clearly using her, but she lets herself be used because that is all she thinks she is good for.
And when did I label you as insensitive? I really wish you would direct your angst to those who have truly called you insensitive instead of someone who has done no such thing. You don't need to take it out on me.
Posted by: squeaky | December 10, 2007 11:07 AM
Posted by: squeaky | December 10, 2007 11:07 AM
Sorry for being so short. As for the Fetus - it is no more or less important than the child. I believe that we need to provide for the child, but we can not keep providing money as they poke out babies. Just like we need to tighten security at the border, we need to put constraints on people making babies and demanding that others pay for them. (I believe that this would poss. include sterilization - Oooo now I am the bad person) So - maybe I have to adjust and say that we will provide for two, but when number two arrives and no father is there to provide for the child. The woman gets her tubes tied. (we as a soceity demand more out of people that own pets than we do people producing children) The football player is now going to spend 20+ months in prison for breaking the law and his miss-treatment of dogs and not providing for them. I am not asking for prison. But when people can not be responsible for their actions, then soceity needs to step in and provide the guidlines.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 10, 2007 11:39 AM
"So - maybe I have to adjust and say that we will provide for two, but when number two arrives and no father is there to provide for the child. The woman gets her tubes tied."
I love the slippery slope this leads us to. How about this: if two parents cannot find income other than from low-wage work that doesn't provide health insurance, let's limit them to two children. If a family breadwinner finds himself (herself) unemployed for more than six quarters, let's tie his tubes. If a family doesn't earn enough money to send their children to college so that their children won't be stuck in low-wage work for the rest of their lives, let's limit the children they can have.
While we're at it, let's sterilize anyone whose genetics predispose them toward having children with disorders that will cost society a lot of money. You can see where this is going.
Posted by: I and I | December 10, 2007 12:34 PM
Steve,
The "Sex Education" comment was used as an example
as one more problem we now face due to the "good intentions" of liberals. Would you not agree that the whole "Sex Education" policies introduced into public schools back in the 60's were a "liberal" undertaking? And would you also not agree, that the problem of premarital sex, STD's, out of wedlock births, abortions, etc have sky rocketed since then? Once again, bad consequences from bad policies that liberals are not willing to take ownership of. And so it will be with our health care system if liberals have their way and let the Goverment take it over. Also, going back to Wallis' original argument that he recieved the superior treatment at the emergency room he did because he could afford health insurance. Does he think that if a single mom on welfare and no insurance (or Money) showed up at the same ER with a sick baby that they would just tell her to take a hike. I don't know for sure, but I think her child would have received the same care. Maybe there are folks in the health care industry that could respond to that statement. (Who actually know, unlike most of us commenting!)
Posted by: debario | December 10, 2007 1:29 PM
Posted by: I and I | December 10, 2007 12:34 PM
'I love the slippery slope this leads us to.'
Fine - I loose - just let them multiply like rabbits. Just let them produce more children that will not have a parent that is attentive so that they can become more brood mares for sperm donors that make babies and then make tracks. After all the DFL in MN needs more voters to get Franken into office. Screw accountability and responsibility. Poke the little darlings out and make your neighbor pay for them.
End of story - no workable solution - bring on the state run health-care and then we can all die early and reduce the surplus population - ES.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 10, 2007 2:10 PM
Wasn't Christ born illegitimate?
Maybe that manger was TOOOO good for the likes of him?
Posted by: sherry combs | December 10, 2007 3:02 PM
At the specific hospital Jim took Jack, it is probably the case that any parent bringing any child, regardless of whether they had any insurance, would have gotten the same care. This hospital raises enormous amounts of money through a campaign in the city's largest newspaper and other fund raising so that it can do that. There are a handful of hospitals like that in the country. And even with that care, it's possible someone without insurance would have been dunned after the fact when they didn't really have the ability to pay.
But most hospitals are not like that. There have been several studies showing that hospitals do not provide the same level of care to those without insurance or the obvious ability to pay. A faith-based provider of health care to the poor which I support in Wallis' city reports that that frequently hospitals just dump homeless patients on the street with acute medical needs. And it is even worse for non-hospital medical care.
The statistics are well known and widely reported that health care in the U.S. is far more expensive than anywhere else in the world. The statistics also show that on most health indices the U.S. ranks behind most industrialized countries and sometimes some non-industrialized countries.
It is pretty obvious that there is something terribly wrong here. Pretty much all of the countries that rank better than we do have some system of universal, or very nearly universal, health care mandated by government. I'm not aware of any country without that which ranks up there.
The systems used do vary, and it is true that what works best for another country might not work best for us. But one can see the patterns in what produces relatively good health outcomes for a population as a whole. We also need to face broader dysfunctions in our country which don't exist to the same degree in most of the countries whose health indices are superior.
By the way, Moderatelad, you might want to consider moving to China. They have a system similar to what you propose. Personally, I think such a system to be highly immoral.
Posted by: Bill Samuel | December 10, 2007 3:05 PM
Moderatelad,
The point of discussion is to propose ideas and hash out the problems with each other's suggestions. When someone points out problems with your solution of sterilization, it doesn't mean you take your marbles and go home. It means you thoughfully consider the points made and see if you can revamp your solution or find a new one. What problems did I and I identify that should have made you think about your proposal of forced sterilization?
You identified a definite problem. You proposed a solution that you even recognized would attract negative responses. Why do you think people would respond negatively? What connotations do people get from that suggestion? Why do you think people would respond negatively? You rightly predicted they would, so you must know the answer to those questions. Hitler leaps to mind.
I understand the concern, and you are correct to point it out. The problem is, it is difficult to provide for the child without providing for the mother. But, since pro-life advocates would force the mother to have the child, no matter how many illegitimate children she has had, then we'd darned well better take care of that child--anyone who would say otherwise can't possibly have the fetus' best interests in mind. But here's the deal--the solution of forced sterilization...or abortion...or adoption...or whatever are only band-aid solutions. Too often we go for the band-aid and ignore the fact that unless the core issue is not dealt with, nothing will ever change (thus, our solutions become enablers--enablers for the problem to persist). My question for you, then, is what solution can you suggest that would have more than a band-aid effect? What deep, meaningful, attack-the-core solution can you suggest? Understand, before you can do that, you have to identify the core problem. I would posit I have already identified at least part of the problem in my last post to you. How might an understanding of that core change your solution to any given problem, as well as to the problem of the woman you have supported, and also, enabled?
Posted by: squeaky | December 10, 2007 3:28 PM
Posted by: N.M. Rod | December 10, 2007 2:34 PM
I 'proposed it' as a talking point not that it was something that should be instituted without discussion. As for the 'liberal' comment - that is how Wally Mondale got and stayed in power - promising to soak the rich so that those that could work but refused could get the checks.
As for loosing my health care - I did for a time. I went to the state to see what kind of coverage I could get - none. If I moved out of the house so that my wife could claim that she was 'abandoned' then she could get help. The state told us how to minipulate the system - gotta love that one.
I have perposed a sliding scale to get people from dependancey to self sufficency and no one on the other side of the issue will even engage that one.
So - I claim defeat. No liberal that I have seen on this site will even consider that there might be a way to make things better for all conserned. It is just going to be the same old same old and throw more money at it. Make sure to neuter your dogs and cats but let women be hasseled and threatened by men into having unprotected sex and bringing more children into a life of poverty so that we can raise more women and run away males that produce more of the same. (something about insanity and doing the samething and results comes to mind)
I am willing to look at solutions rather than ringing my hands and saying that nothing can be done.
Yes - I make an underhanded remark about some liberals in general and I an the bad guy. Others on this site do the same about conservatives but that is gospel. (Gore even did it in his speach for the Nobel Prize - that one will be lauded by CNN and all)
So - do keep doing the same old same old - it has worked so well in the past. China - no, I will let the Baldwins leave because of politics...is he still here?
So lets go on record that we are not going to try to improve the situation as it works so well - I mean...if it was not a problem - what would Wallis have to beat us up about?
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 10, 2007 3:46 PM
I for one promise to be completely ideology-free when it comes to accepting the truth. If it's true, it does not matter at all to me whether it supports a political or theological position.
I'd rather have reality than try to prop up mistaken ideologies.
But, mostly, I find, people tend to cherry-pick the intelligence to justify the policy they have already determined.
I will say, though, it's absolutely clear that we cannot finance global "forever wars" and expect to have any level of adequate domestic infrastructure. Like those who expect freedom without responsibility, they want what never was nor ever will be.`
Health care, like anything else, is a matter of priorities. I think the picture's becoming clear to those who are willing to put all the evidence together, that the eternal war will not leave much wiggle room for spending on much else.
It's difficult to be honest publicly about these matters, not the least because it takes on dimensions of national security - where the truth can't be acknowledged even to the public because it would tend to give enemies cause for hopefulness. That's really a tough thing because it means democratic accountability is effectively cut off to the very people who are supposed to give public policy legitimacy.
As I said, there'll be no sea change until the pain becomes unbearable - and eventually, given present trends and the inability of any of our putative leaders to address any change at all - the pain will become unbearable. The grave danger is that when changes are an emergency and have to be addressed in a hurry that rational chices are not often made. It's when we have the greatest temptation to demagoguery and authoritarian pretences to solution such as scapegoating that historically result in exacerbated suffering instead.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | December 10, 2007 4:16 PM
Jim,
I met Joy in Sherwood AR at Open Door Community Church. I praise God that Jack is doing better and on his road to recovery. Thank you telling the world and using the life experience to put a good visual to a big problem.
jeanne jacobs
Posted by: Jeanne Jacobs | December 10, 2007 4:55 PM
Moderatelad,
On the issue of sterilization, I noticed you suggested the woman get her tubes tied. Why did you not suggest the men who get them pregnant get their tube cut and tied? Why do you place all the responsibility (punishment)on the woman?
According to the Fatherhood Institute, our biggest social problem in America is about 3 out of 10 American children are growing up with an absentee father (no loving father) creating all kinds of social ills from dropouts to increased teenage pregnancy.
Just wondering why conservatives always want to make women walk behind them and blame them for all family problems.
Posted by: Steve | December 10, 2007 5:03 PM
I have a couple of brothers-in-law who insisted that their wives (my sisters) be the ones to get the vasectomy rather than they--despite that the procedure is much less complicated and painful for men. I attributed it to the "castration complex" that Freud wrote about, which is supposedly caused by an overbearing mother.
Posted by: I and I | December 10, 2007 5:11 PM
Tell me about it! Listen, I even felt guilty neutering my male cat, as if I'd violated his masculinity!
Ouch!
Posted by: Kit Cheshire | December 10, 2007 5:52 PM
Moderatelad,
"No liberal that I have seen on this site will even consider that there might be a way to make things better for all conserned. "
Did you read my 3:28 PM post? Is that not exactly what I have been advocating? Are you really including me in your sweeping generalization?
Steve makes a good point--why is it the woman who should be sterilized? Heck, vasectomies are at least reversable. Again, though--what is really the core problem? That is what needs addressing.
"As for loosing my health care - I did for a time. I went to the state to see what kind of coverage I could get - none. If I moved out of the house so that my wife could claim that she was 'abandoned' then she could get help. "
Don't you think this policy is part of the problem? This is exactly why many people advocate for universal health care, especially when the only other option is for fathers to abandon their children, as was apparently the case in your experience. This first hand experience should give you more empathy for the situation, not less.
Posted by: squeaky | December 10, 2007 6:04 PM
Posted by: Steve | December 10, 2007 5:03 PM
Why do you place all the responsibility (punishment)on the woman?
Because she is the one that has the child and will get the money for that child. You take away the money - I bet the stop having so many children. As for the man - I would hold them accountable but in most cases the woman will not 'out' the sperm donor (they are not a father) because she will loose him. Frankly - and yes this is tongue in cheek, but the sediment is real. I would casterate the sucker if we could document that he had fathered two children and not supported them.
It's called accountablity and responsibility and our system does neither at this time.
As for Mondale - I was talking about the Senator not the VP or the Canidate. He walked up and down Plymouth Avenue and told the people - most of which were on state assistance - the Nixon who had perposed for lack of a better term - 'Work-Fare'. He told them the gov't wanted them to work for their welfare check - WOW. My parents both worked and it was called a pay-check.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 10, 2007 7:33 PM
Posted by: squeaky | December 10, 2007 6:04 PM
Are you really including me in your sweeping generalization?
I am responding to the person that I have acknowlegded at the top. Unfortunatly that is you at this time. (lol)
No - you are one of the better ones to address on this site - really and I thank you for that!
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 10, 2007 7:50 PM
Posted by: I and I | December 10, 2007 4:30 PM
Misanthropes
Too cute. But that is not my problem. I believe that in many cases I am too connected and care. I refuse to take no for an answer most of the time and if someone says it can't be done - I will work very hard to make them eat their words.
I believe that I will be service up a good portion of humble pie to a few at our church as we are just opening an aftercare program for elementary students in our community that are on the edge of failing. Several said that we could not afford to do it and would never be able to put together the computers for them. I will be delivering the last of the Mac's that are needed for this venture and it did not cost us a cent - except my phone calls, time and gas - which I will donate.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 10, 2007 8:00 PM
"Funny, nearly every Democratic presidential candidate is talking about solutions to health care--but few or none of the Republican candidates are. Maybe you're watching the wrong debate." - I and I
If only the Pubs would have been asked about healthcare instead of the planted "gays in the military" and "do you believe every word in the Bible" questions. I would have been interested in what they had to say.
Posted by: Cads | December 10, 2007 10:20 PM
Nobody's stopping anyone from offering nuanced serious proposals.
But all I see is cartoonish posturing and pandering, politics of fear and distraction.
Though I don't agree with everything he says, at least Ron Paul's taking more than just getting elected seriously.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | December 11, 2007 1:14 AM
I really resent all the responsibility that is being placed on women for having the babies, with virtually none being placed on the men; I am particularly offended that people who claim to be concerned about men, women and children--all of whom, remember, are children beloved of God--as brood mares and sperm donors, serviced by studs. Can't get more depersonalized than that!
Women have children for a myriad reasons: biology, knowing that babies love you even if no one else in your life does, because they love being mothers, because a man might not feel a man until he can prove it with a child he's helped create...the list is quite long.
The one other comment I feel compelled to make is this: just because we help someone in need doesn't give us the right to tell the needy one how to live her life. I have had to learn that I have to give with an open heart. If I am giving solely to make myself feel good, or less guilty, I need to stop. I recommend that moderatelad consider this. If what the women is doing with your support makes you uncomfortable, stop supporting her--according to your description of the situation, it's obviously conditional support anyway.
Posted by: bren | December 11, 2007 2:20 AM
I want to correct the misapprehension that unreasonable waiting is something that happens in countries with nationalized health care rather than in our own country. When I brought my 2-year-old to an ER in New Jersey, grotesquely swollen and screaming in pain, there was no mystery about what was wrong: he had just had his first taste of peanuts and turned out to be dangerously allergic. The doctors knew what remedy he needed, and they knew that allergic reactions can turn deadly very quickly. But before he could get his shots, I had to spell out his name 3 times for 3 sets of forms and answer questions about my employment (stay-at-home mom) and my husband's employment. That should not happen. Money matters should never come before medical care for a child in excruciating pain and deadly danger.
Posted by: Pauline | December 11, 2007 7:17 AM
Posted by: bren | December 11, 2007 2:20 AM
I need to stop. I recommend that moderatelad consider this.
I can't - the Gov't is the one that takes my money and gives more each time a women on assistance has a new baby. The Gov't is underwriting illegitmacy in this country.
'...responsibility that is being placed on women for having the babies, with virtually none being placed on the men;...'
I have not said that - I hold the man, the stud that will make a baby and then make tracks more responsible. Hence, they are not a 'father' - they are a 'sperm donor'. But in most cases the woman will not 'out' who the father is because of fear or she knows she will need him at another time for another baby.
'...knowing that babies love you even if no one else in your life does, because they love being mothers, because a man might not feel a man...'
You really want to stand by this? The child abuse that happens when all of the sudden that baby that 'loves' you becomes a adolesent that pisses you off because you are both fighting for the same gov't dollors for your individual 'wants'. They love being mothers - but what about being the 'provider'. Are you saying that are OK with the need for a 'man to feel like a man' but not willing to make him behave like a father? Please - this is why we have the problem.
'...just because we help someone in need doesn't give us the right to tell the needy one how to live...'
Our soceity tells millions everyday how they will behave when they get help. Gov't supplies infrustructure to their citizens and we are told what side of the street we will drive on and at what speed and we are regulated and their are consequesces if we disobey. We purchase houses and cars and we are told how much we will pay back in order to have these items to improve our lives. They tell us how many pets we can have and if we want more than is allowed - there are conditions that need to be met in order to have that privilege. Now we are talking about a human being and a future member of soceity - and you are willing to base their actions on 'feelings'? I truly believe that you are a very responsible person - and others should be as responsible as you.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 11, 2007 8:32 AM
Posted by: Pauline | December 11, 2007 7:17 AM
'That should not happen. Money matters should never come before medical care for a child in excruciating pain and deadly danger.'
It should not happen and many hospitals are changing fast where acute situations are dealt with first and the paper work will get caught up later. I hope your child is better.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 11, 2007 8:37 AM
Moderatelad,
"You take away the money - I bet the stop having so many children. "
I bet they also get far more abortions than they would have otherwise. If you are pro-life, then this is not a solution.
You still haven't given any suggestions for how to get to the core of the matter. This is the third time I've asked now, so it seems to me you are far more focused on band-aid solutions. I suggest a change in focus if you really want to see change occur.
Posted by: squeaky | December 11, 2007 10:12 AM
Posted by: squeaky | December 11, 2007 10:12 AM
The 'core problem' is the person, the individual that is unaccountable and unrestrained in the actions.
Fine - so we can do nothing? We have to wait in the wings until this person comes to realize that their actions have grave consequences on them and others.
I would love to drive 55 MPH from my house to the school that my kids go to so that I can get there in a timely manner that I want, when I want. The rest of the community just needs to get out of my way and deal with it. Is that fair? No and their are penalties for my actions.
From the research that I have found with various agencies - these people that are making babies and then not providing for them are not the ones running to the clinics to terminate, the fetus is a cash cow and you don't kill the cow that feeds you. I have as a pro-life conservative gone on record that I would give on the 1st trimester if those who are pro-abortion would conseed the 3rd trimester. In this day and age an OBGYN can safe both the mother and child in the 3rd Tri.
As for the person that is talking about gov't holding 'sperm donors' accountable - I do not see that happening or working well at all and failing big time in MN. We have two couples that each have 2 grandchildren because their daughters made poor choices - twice with the same stud. The grandparents are now assisting to raise their daughters children so the Mom's cn finish some post high school education/training to assure they can get a job. The two donors have yet to pony up and support that one can count on and they are not employed because they will have their wages taken away - guess that is one way you get around the system.
So my friend if you are saying that nothing can be done until the person comes to a realization - we are doomed. I believe that you start by slowly reigning them in and limiting their ability to continue what they do - whatever the issue is you are dealing with.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 11, 2007 11:40 AM
Thanks for this personal reflection. I just took my 20-year old daughter to the emergency room for similar symptoms last week (only my 3rd trip in 26 years of parenting!) and was so grateful for health insurance. But I couldn't help remembering the times when we were without health coverage. We were church planters in Rhode Island fifteen years ago, literally living by faith, with a 10 year old, a 5 year old and a newborn baby. I remember my husband trying to find a plan we could afford. We finally found one (a minimalist one) and the salesman came to our tiny home to discuss the plan. The thing I remember most about it was that it only covered emergency room visits which were the result of accidents. He joked, "If your husband is having a heart attack, hit him over the head and get him to the ER!". I didn't laugh. I asked what I was to do if my infant or any of my children spiked a high fever, went into convulsions, etc. in the middle of the night or on a week-end. He responded: "Call your doctor and have him meet you at his office." I asked if he had a list of these doctors who would meet you at the office in the midnight hours. Of course, he didn't respond. The great irony of this is that all of this was occurring at the time the Clintons were proposing their healthcare plan. And I remember my boss, a good Christian woman, laughing scornfully at the Clinton plan. Of course, she was a bookstore owner, with a good insurance plan, and a husband with good retirement from the military industrial complex. I am so grateful that the Seminary where I teach provides healthcare (a very expensive plan) for my family but I cannot forget the fear and anxiety of being a "have not". God help us.
Posted by: Kimberly Ervin Alexander | December 11, 2007 11:53 AM
"The 'core problem' is the person, the individual that is unaccountable and unrestrained in the actions. "
You still miss my point. WHY is this person acting this way? If you address the REASON behind the action instead of just the ACTION, you will be FAR more likely to make REAL change. So, what is the REASON behind the action? Again, I already suggested one possibility with regards to the friend you support.
This is a lesson we should be learning from Jesus. He had plenty of opportunities to punish and condemn people for their bad behavior, but instead, He got to the heart of the matter and addressed the person's actual need. This is our model for how to effectively deal with people's bad behavior.
"these people that are making babies and then not providing for them are not the ones running to the clinics to terminate"
Yes, and my point again is that if you take away that support, the only recourse many will see is terminating the pregnancy.
"Fine - so we can do nothing? We have to wait in the wings until this person comes to realize that their actions have grave consequences on them and others. "
Did I say that? You keep presenting this huge false choice. Either we do what you suggest or we do nothing. Just because your solution isn't popular or seen as viable doesn't mean those who criticize it as such think we should do nothing. Think a little more--how can you, as a Christian, address the CORE issue? You keep trying to stick a tiny bandaid on a gaping, sucking chest wound. Bandaid solutions never are real solutions. They only treat symptoms of a much bigger problem. Do you want to address that problem, or do you want to just keep doing damage control? From what you have said, your friend who you support is a prime example of what happens when the deeper core issue is not addressed.
Posted by: squeaky | December 11, 2007 12:13 PM
Posted by: I and I | December 11, 2007 9:45 AM
1) The dose of reality will give you one less thing to be so angry about,
I live reality each and every day. My kids attend a school that is 57% minority and 47% free and redused so I get it. I have paid out of my own pocket to several coaches so that kids can play sports. I have to pay full price for everything for my children. There are a number of people that have more modest incomes than mine who can not afford for their children to play sports so I try to help out in that area. The free and redused kids - they don't pay a thing if they want to play - that is paid by me through taxes and then they show up to practice if and when they want to. If they don't get the playing time they think they should - then their parents play the 'race card' most of the time. So - my kids who show up and work hard will sit on the bench because I as a white conservative evangelical male can be ignored. The district has done a great job with my sons, one is in college the other is in 12th grade. I don't think they will be given the chance to educate my daughter through HS as they are programming to the lowest common denominator and I will be heading for 20 miles out of the area. I love my house - which because of decision the school district has made has not gained in value the last two years.
2) You will have gained some knowledge about how public assistance works in the 21st century, and
I believe I understand and I know others have thought about some things prior to me. I know that I am not the brightest bulb on the tree but I also know when it is not working.
3) You won't waste so much space on this blog bloviating as if you are the first to think about these problems.
See answers 1 and 2.
Also I am not angry - I still see the glass as half full. I know things need to get better. I have worked to make them better when I have been able to do so. As hard as I work and I still get slapped - reading Wallis and his accessment of many issues - I want to drink the kool-aid.
I know that they are all our children and I still believe that. I am just not seeing soceity playing it out fairly. I will do my part. I will contribute and volunteer and go the extra mile. But when I am doing all of this and my kids still come up with the short straw because 'we're white'. NO - now I go and find level groud for my children and I can still work in the community to make it better for others. But if I fail to offer my children a chance to be challenged and advance based on their abilities and not their race. Then I need to find a place for them to live, learn and be safe.
We purchased our house based on the diversity of the community and wanted our kids of understand about the 'real world' out there. But my daughter understands that you can be the best of the best in almost any area of her school, but because she is white - she will never (and I mean never) be rewarded for your efforts because it will go to a 'non-white'. My 12th grader had it a little better but even he knows that a non-white will get the advantage in most cases. He is getting out just in time.
Am I angry - no.
Disappointed - yes.
One last point...
Several years ago a group of us worked like nuts to raise $280,000.00 to send student overseas to be apart of an international gathering. We could have just sent those who could 'pay' for the trip - we didn't. Anyone that wanted to go went. I personally worked an avg of 12 to 14 hours a week for 3 months, with others, to make this happen. Anyone was allowed to be a part of the fund raising and the students had a great time and learned a lot. When the district was handing our awards and thanking people in the community for their work on behalf of students. They picked a woman of color that came late to the party and did a lot of talking but not much action. There was another woman that had personally brought in about 80M+ plus from contacting coorperations and organizations on her own, she was forgotten about. I can handle that - I do not need the reconigtion as I am more of a private person. But this was just wrong. They were told about the situation but they gave the award to their first choice.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 11, 2007 12:25 PM
Posted by: squeaky | December 11, 2007 12:13 PM
So - WHY do you think they act that way?
I believe that there are any number of reasons people act out in their lives. Two people may do the same thing under simulare circumstances for very different reasons.
I am not sure that you can always deal with the 'why' but you have more control over outcomes, situations, behaviors.
Soceity is sick and I am not sure if we need the surgeon of the internist.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 11, 2007 12:38 PM
"I believe that there are any number of reasons people act out in their lives. Two people may do the same thing under simulare circumstances for very different reasons. "
That's true--but continuing to ignore the reasons and dismissing them as too difficult to sort out only means you will continue to pay for their mistakes. Society will pay one way or another. Far better to attack the source of the problem than continue having to pay for the outcomes of those problems.
(That being said, there really only is one ultimate source of bad behavior--let's see if you can tell me what it is...)
Your friend who you support--what if the core issue of her problems had been addressed long ago? How would that have changed her situation, and yours?
Christ certainly saw a sick society, but He didn't just write it off as sick and say there was no hope for us and no way to address the deep issues of the human condition. How can we implement His model?
Posted by: squeaky | December 11, 2007 1:04 PM
One more thing
"I am not sure that you can always deal with the 'why' but you have more control over outcomes, situations, behaviors. "
It may seem like you have more control, but ultimately, you don't.
Let's take your solution to a very real possible conclusion. Say we don't support any subsequent illigitimate children. It is highly unlikely that there will be a drop in illigitimate children simply because you haven't addressed the real problem behind the reason people get pregnant (and I reject the notion that people are purposely having children just for the welfare support). So, ignoring for now the probable increase in abortions, there is little or no drop in illigitimate children being born. Now you have even more impoverished children than ever before, and they are even more deeply impoverished than ever before. You have more people with little or no hope who are vulnerable to turning to gangs and crime. You end up having an increase in the crime rate, which, of course, is very costly, not just in terms of societal costs, but in the costs of housing prisoners. So, as I said, one way or another, society will pay. Maybe we don't pay for welfare, but we pay for it in a higher, and far more expensive, crime rate.
Posted by: squeaky | December 11, 2007 1:16 PM
This thread is increasingly focused on how moderatelad sees the world. Since I don't know him, I can only interpret what he says by the words he uses. He says he's not angry, just disappointed. I read his words and feel that he is deeply deeply angry. Why else refer to STUDS, POKING out babies, women having babies for the MONEY? For the welfare money? If those aren't words of anger, they are at the least words of disrespect for men and for women--and for babies (means to an end, rather than beloved).
As for who gets thanked for the work they did: anyone doing something for the recognition is going to be disappointed. Do it because it's the right thing to do. The pleasure that comes with that is 'way 'way more important than any words of thanks that may or may not come your way.
And with that, I am checking out of this conversation.
Posted by: bren | December 11, 2007 1:39 PM
Modlad
Your bigotry and anger are showing. You are playing the race victim card, as they say. Instead of just ranting, maybe you couild stop and realize this is just how so many other Americans, the non-blond Americans, have felt all their lives. They have felt this prejudice, unfairness, anger. For you to just carry it on solves nothing. You end up seeing others as undeserving, like the women you demean in the way you describe them becoming mothers. Did you refer to your own mother as "poking you out"? You describe as all the "others" as being less deserving because they don't appreciate the efforts of you to help them. They don't work as hard, don't care as much, just make a lot of noise. Do you suppose that attitude is obvious to those "others" you are so proud of helping? If you can't treat people with respect, maybe you need to step back a bit. All the goodies in the world will not be appreciated if given with disdain.
Posted by: c kitty | December 11, 2007 1:40 PM
Posted by: squeaky | December 11, 2007 1:04 PM
Your friend who you support--what if the core issue of her problems had been addressed long ago? How would that have changed her situation, and yours?
She was raised in a loving supportive family - they attended church on Sunday and she was confirmed and attended Bible Camp. Straight A student and talented Violin player. Her parents were accepting of her friends and the house was always open to them. One of her friends ended up being an educating Mom thanks to a 'donor' that I was told was on the football team and had bedded several girls in school. They gave her a gift for the baby when he was born. (the player has never acknowledged the child - guess proving himself a 'man' is a private things for him) ANyway when their daughter announced that she was pregant - she could not understand why they were not so excited about her baby like the showed to her girl friend? Her dad had the guts to ask her what they had ever said or did that would have given her the idea that a baby outside of marriage was approved of in their family. He challenged her about what they had talked about sex and according to their faith when was it OK to have sex. She admitted that she knew it was for marriage but they like her friends baby so much, she thought they would be the same way with hers. Mom told her that they love the baby and want to see it grow up and be well. But they never approved of her friend having a child with out a husband / father in the picture. (I can here the laughter from some on this site - yes, I'm old fashioned) Our friends love their grand-baby. But I still don't understand why their daughter would do what she did raised the way she was and loved like she is. Her friend - no dad to speak of and I believe was looking for love and felt the only way she would be loved was to provide sex. So - two beautiful young mothers with kids from two very different families and moral backgrounds. So - why?
You can disregard the idea of babies = money. But most doctors in an urban setting will tell you that a large percentage have babies because they need the money. One of the doctor's in a clinic that we use to go to had several mothers ask to have their tubs reconnected because they lost a few kids to over 18 and need to replace them - how sad.
Blesssings-
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 11, 2007 1:50 PM
"This thread is increasingly focused on how moderatelad sees the world...And with that, I am checking out of this conversation."
Bren, I'm following you out. This is ridiculous. Ignoring those kinds of posts is probably the best response, and I wish I had.
Posted by: I and I | December 11, 2007 2:22 PM
Posted by: c kitty | December 11, 2007 1:40 PM
'Your bigotry and anger are showing.'
My family came a little late to the party and we never owned slaves. My grandfather was a pastor that back in the 40's in several churches help people understand that 1/32 under the skin we are all the same. I have worked hard to keep my children 'color-blind' as much as poss. but public education has done a great job of errasing that one. In helping my fellow man I have be more not letting the right hand know what the left is doing. I am caught between the ecconomic worlds of the Edina Liberals (we got the money we make the rules) and the Urban Needy (you owe me Jack) that I loose at both ends. I have done nothing but welcome people into becoming involved with our community understanding the words of John Kennedy of 'ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country'. There is no race victim card - that one was removed decades ago. As for my mother 'poking me out'. That was our joke for many years on my birthday - today my mother doesn't even remember my birthday. But my parents did not ask anyone for money to raise us kids. We did good with what we had and we learned that it was OK to do without. I believe that a hand-up trumps a hand-out. I for the most part am a very happy man and enjoy working with students and assisting them in their learning. I truly believe that the best has yet to be and the very best has yet to happen. But THAT is something that I do not learn from Wallis. If I took everything that Wallis has to write about to heart and believe what he says as the only truth - really - I would be drinking the Kool-Aid.
I believe that one pulls yourself up by your own bootstraps - but I am one of the first in my community to help people find their boots.
Bigot - you're entitled to your opinion
Angry - hardly...passionate, focus - not angry
Ranting - more than some, not as much as most.
Respect - not a problem, everyone has value.
I am not the Knight riding in on a horse to save the poor retched people - and there are several horses glad about that.
I just want level ground for all and have faught for such. I have a few times refused the award or recognition because I know that there was some one more deserving than I and it was only 'fare' that they would get noticed. Even though there was a day when I dreamed and could have had a career on stage. I would rather operate the spotlight and shine on others than fight for the spot in the light.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 11, 2007 2:28 PM
The American health care system will bankrupt
95% of us before we die. This includes all working people. Ahhhhh, Reaganomics and the Conservative Revolution.
I surely miss the liberal press. It used to focus on our society and illuminate us about problems and corruption before things got totally out of hand. Now,so much is hidden from us.
On a more humorous note, yesterday I saw a bumper
sticker which read:
"I never thought I would miss Nixon."
Posted by: linda | December 11, 2007 2:47 PM
Posted by: bren | December 11, 2007 1:39 PM
'(means to an end, rather than beloved).'
So - when I see poor decision making happening and I would like to help in making good decisions rather than bad. With people walking off a clif because they made a bad decision. I would like to but up a fence so that they have to go another way where they will make good decisions. But some would rahter make sure that there were several resuce squads available down in the valley to help them after they have fallen.
So which is more loving and caring - the fence or the rescue squad?
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 11, 2007 3:10 PM
Jim,
I agree that something desperately needs to be done about the healthcare crisis in the US. I do part company with you, however, when you imply that undocumented residents are equally entitled to all the benefits that US citizens should have available to them. And, yes, the undocumented probably are afraid to go to the emergency room, but having lived abroad LEGALLY twice myself, I would not expect a country that I was residing in ILLEGALLY to offer me ANYTHING in the way of social benefits. That's just being realistic, if you ask me. "There can be no peace without justice" is a quote that I hear often and I think it applies here. I think that law-abiding citizens who are trying to live moral and ethical lives have to wonder about the justice of allowing some to break the law at will and then rewarding them for doing so. How can there be any goodwill-or peace--in a situation like this?
Posted by: Teresa | December 11, 2007 3:19 PM
To those who are leaving -
You were the ones that took on only one part of my post. You ignored the lawyers and the 80 - 80 idea. Now you are leaving because it is dwindled down to one argument?
I am not the one that picked the 'one issue'.
It would be interesting if anyone had a idea about the other two.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 11, 2007 3:27 PM
You've got to have boots to pull yourself up by your bootstraps. I'm currently trapped on the health care version of a hampster wheel. Can't work because I need medical care but if I work I lose access to what care I have and without medical care I'm unable to work and definitely won't be able to afford to see a general pracitioner, 3 specialists (in an average month, sometimes it's more), plus the several hundred each month in meds. Never mind insurance, any one of my conditions makes me "uninsurable" even if I had tons of money and even if every condition was ideally controlled. How did I land in this mess? Last insurance quote was almost $1000/mo to insure my husband and I with $1000 per person annual deductibles, horrid copays (20% in network, 50% out of network, and either way it was based on what they felt was "reasonable and customary), no prescription coverage and specific exclusions of many basic types of care (including that relating to some of my now known conditions)...so considering the insurance alone was almost our entire income we took advantage of a local sliding scale clinic till we moved then while still uninsured I ended up very sick and getting access to specialists even at public health ended up requiring - of all things - INSURANCE. Which ended up meaning that I, who'd been working as a contract IT person, got stuck on SSDI just to have "insurance" to see some really hideously awful medical "professionals" just because it was the only way to get "assistance" without dependent children.
This "system" is costing our society dearly.
Posted by: insurancesystemvictim | December 11, 2007 5:08 PM
"That's an '80s argument. Out-of-wedlock births have been going down nationally for quite a few years now. Until this year, when they increased slightly."
I and I
In 1970 according to the CDC 14.3 of births were to single women . In 2004 it grew to 35.8 percent . I guess I can only say there you go again . If you look at other statistics and compare them to previous generations , anyone would see there should be some concern in this area . Minority birth rates are much worse , but social scientists say that it just a matter of time before the majority race population catches up .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | December 11, 2007 9:03 PM
To those who are leaving -
Blessings on you. Leave if you need to move on to something else or whatever. But don't make me your reason. I have only replied to your comments. Several of you have gone on record accessing my character in a manner I would not dare to do. I believe that more could be done with the lawyers and 80-80 ideas but no - people pounced on the last one and it was the last one and least in the priority list.
In the past I have enjoyed engaging several of you on this site. I have softened if not changed my thinking on a few issues because of the discussion. I enjoy a good 'lol' as much as the other people. I can handle being skewered better than most and understand that because I am a conservative evangelical white male I have a big 'bulls-eye' on me. (I also no that there are no cards in the deck for me to play - that is OK - I perfer a deck with no trump cards)
So - in the future I will be more than willing to discuss any topic - but I will be limiting my topics as some of the articles on this site are not worth commenting on. I will be selective as to who I reply to as some of you are not worth entering into discussion with. If I had accessed your 'character' the way some have gotten away with on this site - I believe several would have found a way to reach through cyber-space and knocked my block off - and they should have.
Just so you know -
Moderatelad 2 years ago would have never been willing to conceed the 1st trimester for the sake of discussion or getting on with the topic discussion. But I can not remember anyone moving to center on that topic. (and we are all 'pro-choice' - now you just have to take a stance if you are pro-abortion or pro-life)
Moderatelad 1 year ago would have never agreed that the earth is 'warming'. I believe that it is now we just have to figure what the cause is - and it is not Al's accessment of the situation. Now if we could just figure out if it is global warming - climate change - creation care. I think they keep changing the title to make it more appealing. Kinda like putting lipstick on a pig. Call is what it is and then get on with the discussion.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 12, 2007 9:32 AM
Modelated I appreciate your posts and tone . Hard when people accuse , assume, question your integrity , promote a religious view that questions yours when your core understanding and belief is that government often makes things wosre , lowers the standards so all can come under neath the umbrella .
Obviously the Bible teaches the danger of sexual sin , and yet that is considered wrong to mention . Or the fact that saying abortion is allowed , are we saying that we have decided when a soul becimes worth protecting ? Or are we saying when we think it is worthing protecting .
I can not see how a person who read the Bible can take the chance of not protecting an unborn baby . but people do , I consider that a blind sight in a believers heart , but wow , when that believer starts preaching about medical care using the Sermon on the Mount , I got to wonder why they don't see the difference in taking care the least of these in scripture with the unborn .
I just don't get it .
I don't see the Lord coming back to a divided church or a church that allows itself to use methods without genuine love for your fellow man to be used to gain political advantage .
When religion is mentioned , it always is used in a conservative sense by the secularized media . its because the left here has adapted the same views as the secualar left . To promote socialism in the name of the separation of church and state is little different then what I see here .
A policy that increases the rolls of the poor yearly is not a success to my thinking . Now a government program that actually causes the poor to decrease its dependency on a government subsidy, medical care, welfare , and such is a good conversation . Your right , I seldom see that here . And I have seen some good points from time to time , and that is good . Interesting also how hated Reagan was , and Evangelicals who had such a media following . They are literally despised here by some , regardless of their politics, even Pat Roberston's ministry has brought people into the Kingdom , I don't see that as important to the religious here as if he brings a political message that agrees with theirs .
I see much attacking , being a victim , throwing perjoritives and rationalization . I got such a temper and emotional personality , its hard for me to not counter with the same .
Your prayers for our men in conflict is a blessing , I thank God for you , and I believe you do make points that others have considered also .
When policies that promote better care for people actually cause a lessened care for all , it is just bad policy for a nation that was built on the concept of freedom and "pursuit" of happiness.
Health care is a complicated issue , and I doubt many people know the difference between Edwards plans , Hillary or Obama . The concept is motivating the left , because it is indeed a good thing for all of us to have health care . Just like it is a good thing that we all have jobs , we all have heat in the winter and food in our frigerators .
A plan that causes macroni and cheese four days a week instead of a balanced diet , or a home that is so expensive to keep that you can never leave it is not what government should be doing .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | December 12, 2007 12:52 PM
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | December 12, 2007 12:52 PM
Thanks for the above post - I was about to call my dentist and volunteer for weekly root canal so that I would feel better. (lol)
Blessings on you and yours...
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 12, 2007 1:14 PM
Once you begin to see your own child's questioning eyes in the eyes of the children of the world, your heart is forever broken.
Posted by: Monte | December 13, 2007 4:02 PM
Jim,
I've had a similar experience, as a pastor who's had to deal, in the past couple of years, with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. It's been an amazing education, and a wild ride. I've been blogging about the experience:
http://cewilton.blogspot.com/search/label/Insurance
You're absolutely right: it's when you have to walk into a medical facility, seeking treatment yourself, that the politics of health care get personal.
Carl
Posted by: Carlos Wilton | December 13, 2007 4:58 PM
We had a similar experience with our son, and though it was a few years ago now, your writing made all the feelings and fears come flooding back in an instant! We live in Canada, so we were able to drive to the nearest hospital and walk into emergency without worrying about money. We had immediate help by nurses and doctor, X-rays and ultra