From Nicholas Kristof, of the NYTimes. Who has faced this sort of situation? Any response to Kristof's article?
So what would you do if your mom or dad, or perhaps your sister or brother, needed a kidney donation and you were the one best positioned to donate?
Most of us would worry a little and then step forward.
But not so fast. Because of our dysfunctional health insurance system, a disgrace that nearly half of all members of Congress seem determined to cling to, stepping up to save a loved one can ruin your own chance of ever getting health insurance.
That wrenching trade-off is another reminder of the moral bankruptcy of our existing insurance system. It's one more reason to pass robust reform this year.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
@DLE
1. Malpractice reform makes a lot of sense. But it simply isn't that big a piece of the health care cost equation.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_39/b4148030880703.htm
2. Opening up competition across state lines would require moving health insurance regulation from the state level to the federal level--something I have a hard time seeing conservatives support. Further, I fail to see how the pre-existing condition problem is addressed by increased competition. Private insurers are going to compete to insure people who are more likely to have higher medical costs?
@Kyle
To avoid misunderstanding, I did not say that the government should play no role in the health care industry. The government already finances 47% of the health care industry through Medicare and Medicaid. Both of these programs face fiscal insolvency in the near future.
@Rebeccat
I hold no brief for the conservative movement. I am a political independent and vote as I see fit, regardless of party. Neither party has a monopoly on truth nor a monopoly on virtue. I simply do not equate massive expansions of the size and scope of the federal government with the will of our Father being done on earth as it is in heaven, regardless of the end in mind. The reality is that there are many unintended consequences to large government interventions and advocates of such interventions rarely show awareness of them, whether they advocate wars on foreign powers or wars on poverty.
It is a little odd to hear that to oppose the current prevailing proposals sponsored by the Democrats one must be a conservative and preface any dissent with an apology for one's "side" not doing enough for health care reform when they were in power. It is possible not to buy into the binary thinking of right and left and advocate positions or oppose policies based on one's own thinking. As Christians we can be informed by ideology but we should not be determined by it.
Napman @17: Amen. There is a dichotomy-type thinking here in the US that one is either Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal. There is no tolerance from either side for independent thinking.
I have been reviled here in Wisconsin for not being a true Christian because I didn't support George Jr's "War on Terrorism." I have been reviled on the Internet for not being a true Christian because I don't support Obamacare. The truth is that a "war" on anything except an invasion of this country is unconstitutional and is just an excuse for more massive governmental interventions. For example: the "Cold War;" the "War on Drugs;" the "War on Terrorism;" the "War on Poverty." I understand there's going to be a new war against freedom on the Internet coming soon, too.
@Napman
Medicare and Medicaid's financing issues do not inherently spring forth from the fact they are government programs. A good chunk of Medicare's problem is demographic--as the ratio of retirees to workers increases. Ultimately, the financing crisis is with health care overall. In fact, private health insurance costs have increased more rapidly than Medicare costs. We're just shielded from directly seeing the cost increases on the private side because of our employer-based system.
https://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/basic-facts-theyre-important
Why do you rule out an expanded government role as potentially being part of God's will for the world? Has Social Security played a role in providing economic safety for the elderly? Have environmental policies helped protect God's creation in many instances? Has the public education system not ensured a basic level of opportunity for all children? These things, while coming with some unintended consequences, seem consistent with God's will to me (and are not things that would happen absent government intervention).
There certainly needs to be balance between the government's role in providing justice and individuals' roles--but the very case study in the blog post above (a situation in which market forces are creating some pretty serious "unintended consequences"), to me, would indicate that balance is currently out of whack.
@Kyle J
There are examples of government intervention that are just and worthwhile. I do not oppose governmental actions that better secure justice for the poor and needy. And I agree that the fiscal insolvency Medicare and Medicaid face are not caused by their origin in federal law.
The prevailing proposals of the Democrats have, it seems to me, deficiencies and likely, if unintended consequences, that their advocates are not addressing. Health care reform is needed, I just favor a different model. And while I respect my brothers and sisters who disagree, I do not believe that opposing these specific proposals requires one to either endorses the status quo or abdicate from one's Christian duty.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.