Health Care

"I rant about the Atheists, the Atheistic Liberal News and Entertainment Industry and democrats because they are the ones that advocate/condone evil activity, then want health care/welfare/socialism to keep the evil people alive." (clirus)

Click to expand...

***************************************************************************************************
"Clirus' " motives for this thread would appear a little disingenuous, given that she is already on record as stating that "the ones that advocate/condone evil activity, then want health care/welfare/socialism to keep the evil people alive."

As for her new found concern for that "82 year old woman that needed back surgery," my 95year old grandmother, who lives in Canada, recently had cataract surgery in both eyes (separate operations), while another 78 year old relative had a hip replacement on July 8, 2009.

Neither possessed any additional private insurance, received a bill for the proceedures nor were required to pay any "out-of-pocket" medical expenses - despite the fact that Canada spends far less on its healthcare system, on a per capita basis, than America.

clirus said:

I heard a statement by a doctor that he had just examined an 82 year old woman that needed back surgery and his statement was that socialized medicine in England would not pay for it. Found following statement, "In England anyone over 59 cannot receive heart repairs or stints or bypass because it is not covered as being too expensive and not needed. "

Found following statement, "Daschle says "health-care reform will not be pain free. Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them.."

Click to expand...

Do you have sources for either of these statements?

Forgive me if I can't accept the word of someone who believes illness is punishment for sin and AIDS is God's wrath on homosexuals as carrying any kind of authority on the matter of public health policy.

I believe the Bible establishes a self sustaining situation, and I can usually relate the root cause of why things do not work as being a willful disobedience of Biblical commandments and doctrines.

Click to expand...

Okay then... NewWorldMan has put forward the challenge to you earlier: the Black Death - how is the 'root cause' of this non-self-sustaining situation the result of willful disobedience to Scripture?

I believe the present world situation is because governments have moved from a purpose of providing protection for good people from evil people to providing services to all people. Providing services to all people allows evil people to prosper, discourages good people and is not a self sustaining situation.

Click to expand...

1.) The sun shines on the righteous and the wicked alike. Or haven't you heard this?

2.) Only God has the supreme authority to judge a whole person as either good or evil. In attempting to make such judgments, you are holding illegitimate claim to a power you do not possess, and may actually be subverting God's Righteousness since human judgments are oft prone to error, bias, misinterpretation and sometimes down-right distortion.

3a.) In previous threads you claimed to be an advocate of Democracy. State neutrality, whereby the State treats all its citizens equally, is considered to be a central tenant of the modern democratic State. This principle, I believe, respects the separation of Church and State, for it acknowledges that the Government does not possess, neither morally nor legally, the authority to declare a whole person as 'good' or 'evil'.

3b.) You claim that it is wrong for the State to provide services to all people, seemingly suggesting that the Government ought to provide services only to 'good' people, and not those that it deems 'evil'. There are several problems with this prospect. The first has already been enumerated above (2 and 3a). Another difficulty arises when considering the logistics of how services would be denied to 'evil' people. The government provides roads, infrastructure and sometimes even employment for all citizens and eligible residents. If the State began to make judgments about 'good' and 'evil' people, and then only provided these services to those deemed 'good', then the principle of State Neutrality - a maxim of modern Democracy - would be violated, for the citizens within this State would be treated unequally. How then can you claim to be a supporter of Democracy, if you advocate a policy that is contrary to one of its tenets?

President Johnson talked of have both guns and butter. The Johnson administration created much of the welfare problems that America is facing today. In particular Johnson extended Social Security to people that had not paid into Social Security and extended benefits to people younger than 65 through Medicaid.

Click to expand...

Do you recall the evidence I presented from a paper by Elizabeth Anderson, featured in the Journal of Applied Philosophy? I suggest you re-read those extracts, or perhaps even the paper itself... since you never bothered to reply to it.

I believe the Bible says children should provide for their parents. If children provided for their parents, there would be no need for Medicare.

Click to expand...

Where in the Bible does it explicitly say that children should provide for their parents?

Going through in order:

clirus said:

Health Care

Health care has again become a hot political issue in America. A lot of people in America look to Europe, Canada and England for solutions, but I hear some things that need further information.

Click to expand...

Er, England is part of the UK, which is in turn a part of Europe

As a general statement, I have the impression that socialized medicine in other countries is successful because of price controls and decreased expectations.

Click to expand...

Price control isn't really an issue, as (excluding dentistry) the only charge in the UK is for prescriptions, which is of the order of $10 per prescription.
As for lower expectations, that's just nonsense.

It is hard to get people to discuss either price controls or decreased expectations, but when the subject of health care in America is discussed, there are a few items that come out.

Click to expand...

because neither are an issue?

I heard a statement by a doctor that he had just examined an 82 year old woman that needed back surgery and his statement was that socialized medicine in England would not pay for it. Found following statement, "In England anyone over 59 cannot receive heart repairs or stints or bypass because it is not covered as being too expensive and not needed. "

Click to expand...

This is not simply inaccurate, it is flat out wrong and as far as I can tell a deliberate lie to further someone's political and financial interests.

Found following statement, "Daschle says "health-care reform will not be pain free. Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them.."

Click to expand...

A quote of a quote of a quote. nothing is ever painless, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the end result isn't desirable (think physiotherapy, it's never comfortable to do but the end result is an improvement).

A new phrase in being used in the health care discussion "outcome evaluation". I believe that is the same as "cost - benefit analysis". How are decisions on cost - benefit analysis made in other countries? Should there be a "Standard Medical Cost - Benefit Analysis" that could be used by doctors, hospitals and insurance companies? Should all governments set up a study group to establish a "Standard Medial Cost - Benefit Analysis"?

Please respond. I am not in favor of government giving people everything they want, nor do I believe in entitlements, but I would really like to know how much price controls and decreased expectations there are in the socialized medicine of other countries.

Click to expand...

As far as I know, the only place an "outcome evaluation" is where there is a shortage of things like transplant organs. There is always a higher need than there is an availability of organs, just as there is in the US.

All in all, I can't help but feel that this has less to do with finding out information about overseas healthcare and more about the political party that's proposing the changes.

clirus said:

From your statements it would appear Canada covers any condition for anyone regardless of age.

I would like to think my intentions are honorable. I try to seek understanding of all things and in particular I try to establish what works and will yield a self sustaining situation. When I see something that is not working I try to establish the Root Cause for why it is not working.

I believe the Bible establishes a self sustaining situation, and I can usually relate the root cause of why things do not work as being a willful disobedience of Biblical commandments and doctrines.

Click to expand...

So, if it could be reasonably determined that these seniors required treatement as a result of Biblical disobedience, would you still think they deserved health care?

I believe the present world situation is because governments have moved from a purpose of providing protection for good people from evil people to providing services to all people. Providing services to all people allows evil people to prosper, discourages good people and is not a self sustaining situation.

Click to expand...

I believe that whether or not a person fits someone else's arbitrary definition of "good" or "evil" should be a factor in determining whether or not that person deserves medical care.

Some are trying to eliminate the guns so as to provide the butter, but I think that will be a great mistake. Europe did not know how much the Islamic Terrorists had infiltrated and how much of a terrorist network had been established. If America pulls out of providing protection to Europe, each nation will have to put more money back into guns. America needs to start charging the world for the service of protecting the world against evil people.

Click to expand...

By your own posts, America doesn't do an adequate job of protexting itself from "evil people." How much money should America charge, and what should be the consequences for non-payment?

Getting back to health care, my questions were related to providing health care to the elderly. I do not believe any health care system will work that tries to provide for people that are not doing everything possible to avoid the need for health care.

Click to expand...

". . .and obviously, if someone gets sick or injured, they clearly didn't do everything possible to avoid the need for health care."

My questions are now about whether any health care system can provide all the care that elderly people want (need). An infinite amount of money can be spent extending life, but how far should life be extended?

Click to expand...

How long do people deserve to live?

Personally, I think people should do everything possible to avoid the need for a funeral.

I believe the Bible says children should provide for their parents. If children provided for their parents, there would be no need for Medicare.

Click to expand...

And for those who have no children. . .possibly because they couldn't afford them when they were younger?

I believe the Bible states life should not be shortened by artificial means, but should life be lengthened by artificial means? How do you get people to accept they are getting close to the judgement?

Click to expand...

Bringing us back to the question: How long do people deserve to live? What's the "expiration date" on God's gift of life?

clirus been here?
FactCheck.org: Is it true that persons older than 59 can't get heart surgery in England?
tulc(seems a good place to start)

I can tell you that the fact that government is running our health system increases our expectations, rather than decreases them - we expect that since it is a state-run rather than a for-profit run system the main goal is quality health care rather than making money, and hold it to that standard.

And again and again, those who assert that socialized medicine is, in and of itself, inferior and doomed to fail, have themselves failed to prove their assertions...

I think I'm seeing a pattern here...

I work in health care. I know for a fact that there is disturbingly little good data on the efficacy of many things we do. My particular field is occupational injuries, the most frequent of which involve the low back. A panel of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) recently surveyed over 1300 articles on low back pain in peer-reviewed medical journals. Only about 400 were considered to contain useful information, and only 100 or so were rated as high-quality, controlled trials. Many of the treatments patients expect--MRIs, physical therapy, spinal manipulation, traction, epidural injections--were found to be effective only in some very specific circumstances. For the vast majority of simple back strains, the strongest evidence was that non-steroidal analgesics, heat, walking, and just giving it time were as good, or better than expensive, high-tech interventions. And with much less potential risk. But it's true that patient expectations are not always satisfied by reciting the medical literature.

The kind of universal insurance plan I'd like to see would be a two--tier system. There'd be a basic plan with benefits based on high quality efficacy data as much as possible. Then the carriers could sell supplemental polices that may provide other benefits not covered in the basic plan. Or, individuals would always have a choice to pay for non-covered treatments out of pocket. Expectations will have to change. No insurance should have to cover anything and everything that anyone wants. But the limitations of coverage must be spelled out in clear terms, so everyone knows what they're getting.

A fellow in my church, a mid50 year old man was having trouble with his knees; it hurt him a great deal to walk.

He visited his doctor. What did his doctor say? "Before I operate on you, I want you to lose 'x' pounds".

I ask these honestly:
In the US, would a doctor EVER hesitate to do that operation?

The Canadian doctor stated that, if the operation would be completed, the
problems would arise again due to this man's weight (he was overweight but not one of these crazy morbidly obese fellas...).

rambot said:

A fellow in my church, a mid50 year old man was having trouble with his knees; it hurt him a great deal to walk.

He visited his doctor. What did his doctor say? "Before I operate on you, I want you to lose 'x' pounds".

I ask these honestly:
In the US, would a doctor EVER hesitate to do that operation?

The Canadian doctor stated that, if the operation would be completed, the
problems would arise again due to this man's weight (he was overweight but not one of these crazy morbidly obese fellas...).

Click to expand...

I know a gentleman whose doctor demaned he lose 50 lbs before he would do a knee replacement. The gent went to another doctor. That doctor went forward with the operation. The gent blew out his good knee in rehab for the first.

This is the reason I believe there should be no government funded health care/welfare.

Click to expand...

So because of one man's irresponsibility* you are going to deny healthcare to those who truly need it - those who have suffered conditions at no fault of their own?

* Incidentally, the man's need for a knee replacement may not have anything to do with his weight, though overweight might be a factor. My father is having a knee replacement soon, and he is slightly overweight but the doctor didn't advise that his overweight caused the need for a knee replacement. Furthermore, many overweight individuals owe their condition to a genetic influence and not merely their apparent 'irresponsibility' for consuming too much. Are we to punish individuals and label them 'irresponsible' for a condition that may have a powerful genetic determinant for which the individual has no control over?

The same is true of most welfare. The Root Cause of most poverty is willful disobedience to the commandments/doctrines of the Bible that leads to poverty. Offering welfare without fixing the sin/evil is senseless and wasteful.

Click to expand...

Clirus, NewWorldMan has challenged you earlier to indicate what "willful disobedience to the commandments/doctrines of the Bible" led to the depravity of the Black Death. Thus far you have not answered this puzzle case, and indeed, there are many puzzle cases which your hypothesis simply cannot account for, leading me to conclude that it is unsupported.

There is an added challenge to your hypothesis of 'sin = poverty'. Many that are rich may also lead sinful lives of willful disobedience to Scripture, and yet they maintain their wealth. Indeed, some individuals, such as drug lords and mafia bosses, obtain their wealth through nefarious activities. By hypothesis, because of their willful disobedience to the commandments/doctrines, these individuals should be in a state of extreme poverty, and yet the opposite is often true. Conversely, many individuals that are poor are also heavily religious. What 'willful disobedience' have the devout Catholics of East Timor committed to warrant poverty?

A major problem is, who has the right to tell a person that they must change their ways before any health care/welfare will be offered. The government cannot make judgement or limit health care/welfare so it needs to just get out of health care/welfare. The purpose of government was never to provide services to the people.

Click to expand...

Actually, the purpose of government is to provide services to the people. The first service the government is said to provide is security of personal and civil liberties and property from unlawful seizure. Defense is a service. Public roads and infrastructure are a service. Political representation is a service. Funding for public events is a service. Building community centers and hospitals is a service. Intelligence acquisition is a service. The list goes on and on. The government is itself known as the public service.

Furthermore, the government can limit the provision of public healthcare. In Australia's socialized healthcare system, not all forms of healthcare are covered. Physiotherapy, for example. Only basic coverage is provided, and additional premiums can be purchased from private companies. Furthermore, for those who can afford it, there is an incentive to purchase these additional premiums as those that too (prior to the age of 30) receive a 30% rebate off their premium payments; that is private coverage with all the benefits the individual (or family desires) for 30% cheaper its original price.

By the concept of Separation of Church and State, the State should stay out of most health care/welfare issues because most of the Root Cause of the need for health care/welfare is wilful disobedience of the commandments/doctrines of the Bible. The State should never do anything for Atheists because the Atheistic Lifestyle leads to disease, death and destruction for an individual and a nation.

Click to expand...

Your hypothesis of the 'Root Cause' as 'willful disobedience' has not yet been proven, and cannot account for the puzzle cases mentioned above, which you consistently fail to address. Since your hypothesis remains unsupported, it is NOT a violation of the separation of Church and State for the government to be interested in the common good of its citizens.

If you claim that "the State should never do anything for Atheists", then you are violating the principle of State Neutrality - an important facet in modern democratic states, and thus cannot call yourself an advocate of Democracy.

clirus said:

The same is true of most welfare. The Root Cause of most poverty is willful disobedience to the commandments/doctrines of the Bible that leads to poverty. Offering welfare without fixing the sin/evil is senseless and wasteful.

Click to expand...

You want the government to determine who is in obedience to the Bible and who is not?

Nathan Poe said:

You want the government to determine who is in obedience to the Bible and who is not?

Click to expand...

It appears the Clirus wants exactly that: a Government which passes judgment upon the persons under its jurisdiction, determining (according to Clirusist criteria) who is 'good' and who is 'evil', and then denying services to the evil people, or "let[ing] them suffer", in the name of protecting the righteous from the wicked and hopefully forcing the evil citizens into poverty such that they beg for assistance which shall only be granted once a conversion is made.

Essentially, a Government of this style that seeks to separate the goats from the sheep would subvert the authority of Christ the King, the only person who has the sovereign and authoritative right to distinguish wholly and genuinely good persons and evil persons, and on the basis of this, pass judgment on the whole person. No State has the moral or Biblical legitimacy to do that, since it is Christ alone who is charged with the role of separating the righteous from the wicked, NOT the Government; an assertion that is made plain in the Bible: Matthew 25: 31-34.

Clirus often tells us that no value that has its basis outside Scripture is valid. The claim that the Government, not Christ, should separate the goats from the sheep has no Biblical basis, and thus is not a legitimate value to pursue.

If the State were to make judgments on who is obedient to the Bible and who is not (according to whose interpretation?), then this would be a clear and obvious violation of the reasonable Separation of Church and State, for as enumerated above, the State has no authority to make such judgments.

In addition, if a State were to pass judgments on the basis of who is obedient to the Bible and who is not, then that State ceases to be democratic, for a maxim of modern democracies is State Neutrality, whereby the government recognizes that it has no jurisdiction to make such judgments upon its citizens, and thus treats its citizens neutrally, displaying no favoritism upon one particular faction over another. In the hypothetical Clirusist state, the democratic principle of State Neutrality is violated, because the Government not only passes judgment, but displays overt favoritism toward Christians, Capitalists. Etc, whilst simultaneously presenting disfavor to any other faction. This recipe of State breeds disaster for pluralism and Democracy. Clirus, how can you claim to be a supporter of Democracy if (as it appears) you disagree with one of its principles?

Good and Evil cannot be treated equally because that gives evil an advantage. Good requires effort to resist temptation. Evil is yielding to temptation. Evil will always be temptation because it offers short term pleasure but long term disease, death and destruction. The young are very susceptible to the temptation of evil because they do not understand the long term effects of evil.

Click to expand...

This problem has already been addressed. In the first instance, the Government has no authority to make the judgment on whether a whole person is either good or evil. See:


In the second instance, the State cannot pass judgments on the basis of someone's religion (or lack of), and then discriminate (between Christians and Atheists for example) on the basis of this judgment. It violates both the Separation of Church and State ("Congress shall pass no law with respect to the establish of religion") and the principle of State Neutrality, both of which appear prominent in modern democratic states, and one of which is firmly entrenched in your founding documents!

Again, I ask the question which you stray away from: how can you claim to be a supporter of Democracy if you wish to shatter one of its core principles?

The State should not enforce morals, but should not reward immorality by health care/welfare.

Click to expand...

Again, I repeat yet another question. Why should those who legitimately require society's assistance due to conditions that are no fault of their own be denied access because you do not wish some individuals to acquire this assistance as it may foster or reward their irresponsibility? What about those who are responsible and upright and yet still suffer?

The key point stated by Blackstone is that law was dictated by God himself, it is superior to all other law, and that no laws contrary to the laws dictated by God are valid.

God's law as stated in the KJV of the Bible does not have to all be made Civil Law, but Civil Law should never violate God's Law.

Click to expand...

By the nature of your principle of doing "whatever it takes" to achieve victory in a conflict, both Civil Law and God's Law are at risk of extreme violation. Since you advocate such a principle, I cannot accept your words on 'God's Law' as being authoritative, since in many ways, your beliefs - if applied - would violate that Law.

I do not believe a State can survive without a Church, nor a Church be successful without a State. I believe there was much more of a Church - State symbiotic relationship that began to erode when America started down the road of socialism during the Roosevelt Administration.

Click to expand...

The principle of a Separation of Church and State is designed in such a way so as to eliminate a symbiotic relationship between the two bodies. If you want a symbiotic model of Church-State relations, refer to the ancient Roman Empire, where Church and State appeared heavily intertwined.

Medicare was a social program that violated the Christian Concept of the children taking care of the parents. From there, many programs and laws have been enacted that are a violation of the Bible.

Click to expand...

Puzzle case: many parents cannot have children naturally. Who is meant to look after them?