We need a two-pronged attack to get a sane medical system

[dogs4thewin]

Last time I looked, Jesus wasn't walking the earth healing the sick, blind, deaf, mute, and lame....but the fact that He did so so often during his ministry is proof positive that Jesus wants us to be whole. To be healed. His heart was with the poor and disenfranchised---not the wealthy, who I bet had plenty of glib excuses in their time about why helping the poor was wrong according to their religious books and laws.

Look at the world stage. Every other industrialized nation has universal health care. Many of those have higher standards of living, better educated populaces, and higher overall happiness than our "swamp" of income inequality. Want to drain the swamp in real life? Correct the inequities of society. Recognize that health care is a human right. Bring back labor unions.

labor unions I agree with healthcare as a human right no.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Get back to us when “the Church” shows both willingness and capacity for such a task. Remember Jesus did not heal everyone, but a select few.

The church as a whole is different than particular churches. A particular church may be more willing/able to provide those things. The church as a whole though we cannot control.

 

[carlv_52]

I have used Medicaid and I would disagree with your assertion that it works well.

If I might ask a quick question: if you used Medicaid then you were clearly not wealthy and had a lot of extra expendable cash. Without medicaid would your access to healthcare have been easier or resulted in a better healthcare outcome?

I don't mean to defend Medicaid, I'm sure it has serious problems. But it points up to a real need in our country for something, anything better than our current inequitable, unaffordable system.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Why do we provide socialized healthcare for members of the Armed Forces?

and how good that healthcare is varies from place to place. In fact, as it relates to government disability ( other than VA) veterans are advised to seek private care because VA records are often not enough.

 

[Josheb]

How would a Christian utopia differ from a secular government that takes care of the health of its citizens through legislation?

Isn't that a topic for another board?

I won't be collaborating with a digression. I also hope it isn't being insinuated that what I am proposing is Christian Utopianism (because I am not). Such a view would be a straw man.

We shouldn't be surprised at my questions. The governments God established in the Bible were forms of representative republics (Judges, Moses, the early church). We should be already familiar with these principles so I am surprised no seems to have an answer to the questions I've asked or the points I've made. The people in the Bible changed God's ways. Repeatedly. I urge everyone to study this. God will let His people have their way but there are always adverse consequences for doing so. Read 1 Samuel 8:7-22. Those of you so inclined might find reading Augustine's "City of God," or Francis Schaeffer's trilogy (or both) of benefit in forming a Bible-based worldview that covers all aspects of life (like whether or not we should ask the government to run medical care and insurance outside of its Constitutional restrictions that were put there to prevent such expansions of the federal government).

 

[dogs4thewin]

If I might ask a quick question: if you used Medicaid then you were clearly not wealthy and had a lot of extra expendable cash. Without medicaid would your access to healthcare have been easier or resulted in a better healthcare outcome?

I don't mean to defend Medicaid, I'm sure it has serious problems. But it points up to a real need in our country for something, anything better than our current inequitable, unaffordable system.

I am disabled and was on ( at the time my father's private insurance and Medicaid when I needed braces ( for my feet the private insurance approves it MUCH more quickly than Medicaid did, Moreover, here in my area at least it is tough to find doctors who will even take Medicaid and frankly as someone who has several businessmen in her family AND as someone who took several `business classes in high school I do not blame them and am not even sure I would take it ( especially if I were a doctor just starting out.)

 

[RDKirk]

Fail. Niether Biblcial pasage says anything about the government being the savior of society, nor Christians relying on the government for medical care. Neither is the practice of pagan governments the model for the church or gospel-infuenced society. Your reading of scripture would have Christians create the government as this authority and then submit to it because it's an authority. That is circular and unscriptural.

There is no scriptural edict for a king to provide for any need of the people. The op is yours, not mine, so the onus is on you to provide scriptural justifcaction for you rposition and not fallacious attempt to shift that burden to another. You should think about this because if you cannot find a place where scripture says the government should meet the medical needs of people then you shouldn't be advocating such politics.

Scripturally, the king is going to do what the king is going to do, and Christians are to obey the king up until the king's command conflicts with Christ's.

 

[RDKirk]

Medical care and insurance is not Caesar's.

Of course it belongs to Caesar. All worldly economics and politics belongs to Caesar. The coin belongs to Caesar and all Caesar does with his coins is Caesar's.


You're posing a foundationally silly argument.

There is no scriptural basis for Caesar's decisions.

That's why we do not worship Caesar.

 

[rjs330]

Some Christians subscribe to the notion that government becomes a problem when it usurps biblical teachings.


They are seemingly unable to see that Christians have WON over the GOVERNMENTS to do God’s bidding!

It’s like they fear to own the victory that it is, choosing, rather to continue the “big government is BAD” mantra!

God's bidding is included in scripture. No where is scripture does it state that government is to take care of all our needs.

If one wants to argue that one simply thinks government should do this or that for us, then that is fine. But we should never attribute that to scripture. It's a PERSONAL belief. Which one is perfectly entitled to have. But we cannot use scripture to back it up as a mandate of God or God's bidding.

 

[rjs330]

Healthcare policy is a difficult giant. Some of the problems I envision is you have no mention of how the system will be paid for? Secondly, a bronze plan is high deductible, so most would gain worse coverage than before as nearly all employers that subsidize health insurance will force their employees to the public system. When government price fixes, they attempt to lower the price and as a result shortages occur, and in health care this means rationing and long waiting times. Many Dr. already do not take medicaid and/ or medicaid patients so it could be a real problem if Dr's and health systems are not willing to lower charges. Rather than such a drastic change, the government should promote more competition. Allow people to buy drugs from other countries directly. Allow insurers to write more basic policies with exclusions so people can afford to have major medical without all the bells and whistles. Personally, I would prefer 1/2 the drugs move from prescription to over the counter, like many other countries. This will eliminate millions of Dr visits alone. Sure some people might misdiagnose themselves, but better to have access to potentially helpful drugs than to have none at all. On the supply side, the U.S. government should encourage more medical schools to open. Flood the market with Dr's and other health professionals. Shorten the time to completion too, by getting rid of some of the general education requirements in the Bachelor's. Missouri is leading the way too by letting those with an MD, practice medicine (with some restrictions) even if they did not complete a residency. Government could force price transparency. Suppose a Dr. refers you for an MRI. All the local providers should have a price list that you would be given. These are just a few ideas I see commonly. There are many other things that can be done to help with the health care costs in the USA. The impediment is MONEY. Pharmaceuticals are the top advertisers, so media owners love the current system. Insurers and health providers also flood Congress with campaign donations.Thus, if you want a real fix you have to work on some the structure the U.S. has like eliminating commercials for drugs, which used to be done.

I really love a lot of these ideas. These are REAL solutions and not just "let's have government pay for healthcare." I don't like them all, but man some of these are good!

 

[rjs330]

It is.

But it is also a good thing to debate the fundamental assumptions underlying an issue, such things as whether the government has a Biblical mandate to be involved in keeping an army, navy, air force or for schooling or for a space program or for surveillance

Please provide why it's governments job? Especially using the Constitution to do so.

 

[rjs330]

Indeed there were many words in my post that were true. Americans DO face significant risk of bankruptcy due to healthcare costs. In fact nearly 66% of bankruptcy in the US is due to healthcare costs (HERE).

ALSO: single payer is NOT government run healthcare (HERE). It is where the government controls the payment but does not provide the healthcare.



Doesn't happen with the frequency you have been told. And in addition most countries with Single Payer want to keep it.



I have done so.

Now you can apologize or I will know what you are by the fruit you bear.

Single payer is ALWAYS government run healthcare. Because the government takes over what it will cover, what it won't and how much they will pay. Even in those great European countries they do that.

 

[rjs330]

Scripturally, the king is going to do what the king is going to do, and Christians are to obey the king up until the king's command conflicts with Christ's.

Right, but that still.doesnt mean the Bible says we should have government run healthcare.

 

[RDKirk]

Right, but that still.doesnt mean the Bible says we should have government run healthcare.

That's a debate point you invented which means nothing. Nobody in this thread is arguing that anything the government does is by bible mandate.

 

[MorkandMindy]

That's a debate point you invented which means nothing. Nobody in this thread is arguing that anything the government does is by bible mandate.

Except for providing a well-equipped air force.

 

[carlv_52]

Single payer is ALWAYS government run healthcare.

By definition it is NOT. Again, you are free to show me your "opinion" on what it is, but that doesn't make it any more correct than saying a bat is a bird.

Because the government takes over what it will cover, what it won't and how much they will pay. Even in those great European countries they do that.

I will also note that that is EXACTLY what insurance companies do today and you live under that regime. So I can't really see why you would complain about an alternative that sounds exactly like that. But, again, you wouldn't be talking about single payer, you'd be talking about government run healthcare in which the government staffs and provides the doctors.

If you want to talk technically then you must use the proper words. If you are unable to understand the topic on a technical level then your opinion carries less weight by merit of a lack of appreciation of the technical details.

 

[Josheb]

I will also note that that is EXACTLY what insurance companies do today and you live under that regime.

That isn't correct. In the competitive market a person can purchase the degree of coverage they want or can afford. I government-run healthcare one policy fits all and everyone pays for things they do not need. Because the expenses of medical care occur late in life requiring insurance for all will be necessary to foot the bills of others. Not only is this coercive but if the government handles this purse the same way they have handled social security and Medicare then there won't be any money any way and we'll be in a constant political debate about "healthcare reform" that really means "we need more of your money and you're going to get less in return."

If you want to talk technically then you must use the proper words.

Yes, it is called graft.

Id you, carlv_52 are talking about a private-payer single-payer system then that is off-topic from the op. This op specified a public system, not a private one.

 

[carlv_52]

That isn't correct. In the competitive market a person can purchase the degree of coverage they want or can afford. I government-run healthcare one policy fits all and everyone pays for things they do not need.

Ummm, you don't get your insurance through your employer, do you? Because yes I can choose to some extent, but not to the degree you seem to think. That isn't really how insurance works anyway. You pay for it precisely because you don't know exactly what you will need. But you will be punished if you choose wrong and need care the company doesn't cover.

That isn't really how a free market works either.

Because the expenses of medical care occur late in life requiring insurance for all will be necessary to foot the bills of others.

Not sure if you are completely unaware how insurance works or what....just a sec. Insurance works because you COUNT on a lot of people paying into the system who will NOT need it. That's how insurance has worked since it was invented hundreds of years ago for shipping agencies.

The idea of getting more people who don't need it into the system is the ONLY way you can reform an insurance-based system which is what the ACA was trying to do. ACA was NOT a single payer system. The republicans ensured that the public option would NOT be available. The GOP wanted a reform of a market-based, insurance system. You CANNOT force a risk-based business to give up controls on their costs (like pre-existing conditions and lifetime caps) without giving them an offset like forcing more people who will not use the system INTO the risk pool.

It's statistics. It's math. It's how insurance works.

Id you, carlv_52 are talking about a private-payer single-payer system then that is off-topic from the op. This op specified a public system, not a private one.

I am talking about Single Payer as it has been described now for many, many years.

 

[cow451]

Because the military is a Constitutionally mandated arena in which the government is empowered to address. In addition, these men and women work at reduced wages and risk their lives, not their livelihoods.

The Constitution doesn’t mandate a socialized healthcare plan for them for life

 

[Josheb]

The Constitution doesn’t mandate a socialized healthcare plan for them for life

I completely agree, but it is within the Constitutional mandate to legislate such a benefit. The Constitution does not empower the federal government to do so in most other domains.